DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-22 are currently pending. Claims 2, 4, and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn. The previously stated 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 4-8 is withdrawn. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 19-22 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “hexafluorosphate” is misspelled and should be “hexafluorophosphate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 111384345 A) using (US 2021/0296626) as an equivalent English translation, in view of Hu et al (CN 102367172 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, 19, and 20, Wang et al discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a separator comprising a porous substrate layer, an intermediate layer, and a ceramic coating layer, wherein the intermediate layer includes a metal oxide powder (functional particles / inorganic oxide), wherein at least a portion of the metal oxide powder is embedded (filled) in the internal pores of the porous substrate layer, wherein the ceramic coating layer is formed on two surfaces (upper surface and lower surface) of the porous substrate layer; wherein the porous substrate layer comprises one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyamide; wherein the ceramic coating layer comprises ceramic material particles and a polyacrylate binder (polymer particles); wherein the thickness of the ceramic coating layer is 5 um; wherein the metal oxide powder may be selected from one or plural of Al2O3 (Al oxide), SiO2 (Si oxide), TiO2 (Ti oxide), and ZrO2 (Zr oxide); wherein a particle diameter (D2) of the metal oxide powder (functional particles) is 30 nm and ceramic material particles (material of the coating layer) having a D50 (D3) = 0.3 to 0.9 um; wherein particle diameter (D2) of metal oxide powder is less than the pore diameter (average pore size / D1) of the porous substrate layer ([0014],[0017],[0022]) corresponding to 1.2*D2 = 1.2*30 nm = 36 nm and 0.8*D3 = 0.8*900 nm = 720 nm ([0009],[0012]-[0016],[0018], [0022]).
However, Wang et al does not expressly teach functional particles that are oxides with outer layers comprising an -NH- group or -NH2 group; wherein the functional particles comprises an inorganic oxide in the inner layer and an organic matter containing -NH- or -NH2 in the outer layer, and the organic matter containing -NH- or -NH2 is grafted to the inorganic oxide; wherein the organic matter containing -NH- or -NH2 comprises a polyamine compound and a derivative thereof; wherein 1.2*D2 < D1 < 0.8*D3, where the average pore size of the porous substrate is D1; and a porosity of the porous substrate that ranges from 20% to 90% (claim 1); wherein the gas permeability of the separator ranges from 120 s to 600 s (claim 14).
Hu et al discloses a lithium ion battery diaphragm/polyolefin microporous membrane (separator) comprising a modified silica (functional particles) comprising silica (inorganic oxide / Si oxide) in an inner layer and aminopropyltriethoxysilane (organic matter containing NH2 group / derivative of polyamine compound) in the outer layer, wherein the modified silica is formed by dispersing silica particles in toluene, adding aminopropyltriethoxysilane, heating the mixture to boiling, and then refluxing at a constant temperature for 48h which inherently results in aminopropyltriethoxysilane being grafted to the silica particles; wherein the average pore size of the membrane is 0.5 um (500 nm) which is between 36 nm and 720 nm; wherein the porosity of the membrane is 55%; wherein the gas permeability of the membrane is 180 sec ([0020],[0028],[0057],[0066] and Table 1, Example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Wang metal oxide powder to include functional particles comprising an inorganic oxide in the inner layer and an organic matter containing -NH2 in the outer layer, and the organic matter containing -NH2 is grafted to the inorganic oxide; wherein the organic matter containing -NH2 comprises a derivative of polyamine compound; wherein the average pore size of the membrane is 0.5 um (500 nm); wherein the porosity of the membrane is 55%; wherein the gas permeability of the membrane is 180 sec in order to utilize an acid scavenging agent in a membrane that is significantly superior in terms of membrane thickness, membrane porosity, and tensile strength ([0028],[0057],[0123]).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the instant claim is being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. However, the claim is obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Hu et al as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Shi et al (CN 104124417 A, machine translation).
However, Wang et al as modified by Hu et al does not expressly teach organic matter containing -NH- or -NH2 comprising one or more of hexamethylenediamine, p-phenylenediamine, methyl m-phenylenediamine, diethylenetriamine, triethylene tetramine, poly-m-aminostyrene, polyethyleneimine, and hexadecylamine (claim 7); wherein the functional particles is PEI-SiO2, whose organic matter is polyethyleneimine (claim 8).
Shi et al discloses a supramolecular film (functional particles) comprising inorganic building blocks (inorganic oxide in the inner layer) such as silicon dioxide (SiO2 / silica) and organic building blocks such as polyethyleneimide (PEI) (organic matter containing NH2 group in the outer layer) ([0009],[0013],[0014],[0017],[0024], [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Wang/Hu metal oxide powder to include polyethyleneimide in the outer layer because the substitution of one known organic amine (organic matter containing -NH2) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Hu et al as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Morooka et al (US 2019/0190082).
However, Wang et al as modified by Hu et al does not expressly teach a positive active material that is polar inorganic substances containing oxygen (claim 21); and an electrolyte comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (claim 22).
Morooka et al discloses a positive electrode active material such as a lithium-containing composite oxide (polar inorganic substances containing oxygen) and an electrolyte salt such as LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) ([0123],[0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the Wang/Hu battery to include a positive electrode active material such as a lithium-containing composite oxide (polar inorganic substances containing oxygen) and an electrolyte salt such as LiPF6 in order to utilize conventional positive electrode and electrolyte materials for lithium ion batteries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 19-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights