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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12 and 15-20, drawn to a water-based separator in the reply filed on November 24th, 2025, is acknowledged. Due to being drawn to a non-elected species, claims 13 and 14 are not examined in the current office action.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al, CN 205828578 U (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Yang et al, CN 111129406 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeng teaches a secondary battery wound cell, including a first electrode (Zeng, 10; figure 2), a second electrode (Zeng, 20; figure 2) and a separator (Zeng, 30 ; figure 2),wherein the second electrode has an opposite polarity to the first electrode [Zeng, 0039], and the separator is a double-layer structure with two layers of film wound simultaneously, including the winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 2), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 2), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, all winding segments include inner and outer layers of film [Zeng, 0036]. Figure 5 of Zeng shows the winding starting layer is located on the innermost of the wound core, and C connected to the needle grip segment (Zeng, 40; figure 5), as shown in figure 5 of Zeng corresponds to the clamping section of the claim, wherein according to the instant specification, the clamping section is defined as the section where the rolling needing clamps the heads of the two layers of separators [instant specification, 0056], followed by a first straight section connected with and located behind the clamping section, as shown in figure 5 of Zeng, and a tail conforming section extending beyond the tail of the first electrode sheet, wherein the first straight section is located in front of the first electrode sheet, as shown in figure 5 of Zeng. As shown in figure 5 of Zeng, the first straight section, the tail laminating section and the clamping section are connected together, corresponding to the claimed requirements of the first straight section and the tail laminating section laminated with the clamping section and the first straight section and the tail laminating section of the outer separator. Further, as shown in figure 11 of Zeng, the winding start layer has a natural fold-back section (Zeng, 35; figure 11), that overlaps with the separator winding start layer [Zeng, 0054]. According to figure 11 of Zeng, the presence of the natural fold-back section results in the separator at the center having four layers [Zeng, 0054], further the separators is a double-layer structure with two films wound simultaneously [Zeng, 0036], therefore, the inner separator with the first laminating section has two parts as required by the claim, this is shown in figure 11 of Zeng, wherein according to the instant specification, this is shown by arrow P in figure 7b [instant specification, 0057]. However, Zeng is silent to teach an adhesive surface of the first laminating section of the inner separator has a wet peeling force of ≥ 2 N/m and a ceramic surface of the first inner laminating section of the inner separators has a wet peeling force of ≥ 1 N/m.
Yang teaches a water-based high-viscosity coated separator [Yang, 0026] with an average adhesive strength ≥ 8 N/m [Yang, 0009], wherein the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim, and a positive electrode ceramic layer is included between the base film and the positive electrode polymer layer, and/or a negative electrode ceramic layer is between the base film and the negative electrode polymer layer [Yang, 0011], wherein the ceramic layer corresponds to the ceramic surface of the claim. The average adhesive force, corresponding to the wet peeling force of the claim, was measured for the side A, corresponding to the ceramic surface of the claim, and side B [Yang, 0104], corresponding to the adhesive surface of the claim, wherein the results are shown in Table 1 of Yang, and the results show the adhesive force is ≥ 8.1 N/m for both the ceramic and adhesive surface of the separator.
Yang and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the separator of Zeng to include the adhesive force for the ceramic surface and adhesive surface as taught by Yang because such modification would result in a diaphragm with stable and controllable internal resistance of the battery cell, and improved cycle life and safety performance [Yang, 0111].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach a length of the first inner laminating section of the inner separator is 30 to 60% of a width of the wound core.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach a length of the first inner laminating section of the inner separator is 30 to 60% of a width of the wound core, Zeng teaches the separator winding start layer (Zeng, 31; figures 2-4), comprising the first inner laminating section of the claim, in the first embodiment, almost covers the entire width direction L of the battery call, however, in the second embodiment the separator winding start layer has a moderate length [Zeng, 0050], thereby teaching the length of the start layer depends on the needs of the invention, and according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the length of the first inner laminating section of the inner separator to be 30 to 60% of a width of the wound core.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein both the separator winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 2), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 2), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, are double-layered structures [Zeng, 0009] and all subsequent winding segments include an inner and outer layers of film [Zeng, 0036]. Further, the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim, and a positive electrode ceramic layer is included between the base film and the positive electrode polymer layer, and/or a negative electrode ceramic layer is between the base film and the negative electrode polymer layer [Yang, 0011], wherein the ceramic layer corresponds to the ceramic surface of the claim. Figure 1 of Yang depicts the base film (Yang, 4; figure 1), on which one surface includes the adhesive polymer layer (Yang, 2; figure 1) and the ceramic layer (Yang, 3; figure 1), corresponding to the surface including both the ceramic and adhesive layer of the claim, and the other surface includes the adhesive polymer layer (Yang, 5; figure 1) [Yang, 0069], corresponding to the surface of the separator including on the adhesive layer of the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, wherein figure 5 of Zeng depicts the separator winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 5), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 5), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, and the surfaces of winding starting layer and the winding sub-layer are opposite to each other on the needle grip segment (Zeng, 40; figure 5), corresponds to the clamping section of the claim. However, modified Zeng is silent to teach on the first straight section and the tail laminating section are the ceramic surfaces, or a surface of the inner separator that faces itself on the first laminating section is the adhesive surface.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the first straight section and the tail laminating section are the ceramic surfaces, or a surface of the inner separator that faces itself on the first laminating section is the adhesive surface, Zeng teaches the separator is a double-layer structure with two layers of film wound simultaneously, including an inner and outer layers of film [Zeng, 0036]. Further, Yang teaches the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim, and a positive electrode ceramic layer is included between the base film and the positive electrode polymer layer, and/or a negative electrode ceramic layer is between the base film and the negative electrode polymer layer [Yang, 0011]. By laminating both sides of the separator with polymer binders of different systems to match the binders added to the positive/negative electrode sheet, the adhesion between the separators and the electrode sheets is improved, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Moreover, according MPEP 2144.04, IV, B, changing the shape of the main body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed main body is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the first straight section and the tail laminating section to be the ceramic surfaces and the surface of the inner separators that faces to itself on the first laminating section to the be the adhesive surface to obtain a battery cell with improved cycle life and safety performance [Yang, 0019].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, wherein figure 5 of Zeng depicts the separator winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 5), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 5), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, and the surfaces of winding starting layer and the winding sub-layer are opposite to each other on the needle grip segment (Zeng, 40; figure 5), corresponds to the clamping section of the claim. However, modified Zeng is silent to teach on the first straight section and the tail laminating section are the adhesive surfaces, or a surface of the inner separator that faces itself on the first laminating section is the ceramic surface.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the first straight section and the tail laminating section are the adhesive surfaces, or a surface of the inner separator that faces itself on the first laminating section is the ceramic surface, Zeng teaches the separator is a double-layer structure with two layers of film wound simultaneously, including an inner and outer layers of film [Zeng, 0036]. Further, Yang teaches the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim, and a positive electrode ceramic layer is included between the base film and the positive electrode polymer layer, and/or a negative electrode ceramic layer is between the base film and the negative electrode polymer layer [Yang, 0011]. By laminating both sides of the separator with polymer binders of different systems to match the binders added to the positive/negative electrode sheet, the adhesion between the separators and the electrode sheets is improved, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Moreover, according MPEP 2144.04, IV, B, changing the shape of the main body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed main body is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the first straight section and the tail laminating section to be the adhesive surfaces and the surface of the inner separators that faces to itself on the first laminating section to the be the ceramic surface to obtain a battery cell with improved cycle life and safety performance [Yang, 0019].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the length of the clamping section of the inner separator and a length of the clamping section of the outer separator are each 1 to 15% of a width of the wound core; and/or a length of the first straight section of the inner separator and a length of the first straight section of the outer separator are each 40 to 50% of the width of the wound core.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the length of the clamping section of the inner separator and a length of the clamping section of the outer separator are each 1 to 15% of a width of the wound core; and/or a length of the first straight section of the inner separator and a length of the first straight section of the outer separator are each 40 to 50% of the width of the wound core, Zeng teaches the separator winding start layer (Zeng, 31; figures 2-4), comprising the first inner laminating section of the claim, in the first embodiment, almost covers the entire width direction L of the battery call, however, in the second embodiment the separator winding start layer has a moderate length and in the third embodiment, the starting layer of the separator film is the shortest[Zeng, 0050]. The third embodiment, the starting end C of the winding sightly exceeds the starting end A of the first electrode sheet in the cell width direction L, but doe not reach to the leftmost tab, so the starting layer of the separator film does not overlap with the first or second tabs in a cell thickness direction [Zeng, 0050] and the fourth and fifth embodiments, as shown in figures 8 and 9 of Zeng, the separator has two random directions where it extends forward in the battery cell width direction and becomes a part of the winding start layer [Zeng, 0054]. Zeng teaches the variability of the length and width of the separator in relation to the electrode sheets, as discussed above. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the length of the clamping section of the inner separator and a length of the clamping section of the outer separator are each 1 to 15% of a width of the wound core; and/or a length of the first straight section of the inner separator and a length of the first straight section of the outer separator are each 40 to 50% of the width of the wound core.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the tail laminating section of the separator winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 5), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 5), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, is shown in figures 2-5 and 8-11, where the electrode sheets and the separators begin to narrow, however, modified Zeng is silent to teach on the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separator each being ≥ 5mm; and/or the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separators are each 0.1 to 10% of a width of the wound core.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separator each being ≥ 5mm; and/or the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separators are each 0.1 to 10% of a width of the wound core, Zeng teaches the separator winding start layer (Zeng, 31; figures 2-4), comprising the first inner laminating section of the claim, in the first embodiment, almost covers the entire width direction L of the battery call, however, in the second embodiment the separator winding start layer has a moderate length and in the third embodiment, the starting layer of the separator film is the shortest[Zeng, 0050]. The third embodiment, the starting end C of the winding sightly exceeds the starting end A of the first electrode sheet in the cell width direction L, but does not reach to the leftmost tab, so the starting layer of the separator film does not overlap with the first or second tabs in a cell thickness direction [Zeng, 0050] and the fourth and fifth embodiments, as shown in figures 8 and 9 of Zeng, the separator has two random directions where it extends forward in the battery cell width direction and becomes a part of the winding start layer [Zeng, 0054]. Zeng teaches the variability of the length and width of the separator in relation to the electrode sheets, as discussed above. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separator to each be ≥ 5mm; and/or the length of the tail laminating section of the inner and outer separators to each be 0.1 to 10% of a width of the wound core.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the lithium-ion battery having an overall hardness ≥ 200 N.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach a lithium-ion battery having an overall hardness of ≥ 200 N, Zeng teaches a secondary battery wound cell, including a first electrode (Zeng, 10; figure 2), a second electrode (Zeng, 20; figure 2) and a separator (Zeng, 30 ; figure 2) [Zeng, 0039]. The separator is a double-layered structures [Zeng, 0009] and all subsequent winding segments include an inner and outer layers of film [Zeng, 0036]. Further, the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer, i.e. the binder [Yang, 0069] and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim, and a positive electrode ceramic layer is included between the base film and the positive electrode polymer layer, and/or a negative electrode ceramic layer is between the base film and the negative electrode polymer layer [Yang, 0011], wherein the ceramic layer corresponds to the ceramic surface of the claim. According to the instant specification, each of the inner and outer separators includes a base film, ceramic layer, and an adhesive layer [instant specification, 0009]. Yang teaches the ceramic particles in the ceramic layers are selected from at least one of alumina, boehmite, magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide and other material [Yang, 0023], wherein the instant specification teaches the ceramic particles are one or more of alumina particles, boehmite particles, and magnesia particles [instant specification, 0021]. Further, the binder in the adhesive polymer layer, is a positive electrode adhesive polymer [Yang, 0015] is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride tetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoroethylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride hexafluoropropylene polymers [Yang, 0017] or pure styrene latex, styrene-acrylic latex, styrene-butadiene polymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, styrene-butadiene latex, polybutyl methacrylate, polyacrylate polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylic acid, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate, polyurethane, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyimide, and polyvinyl acetate [Yang, 0018], wherein the instant specification teaches the adhesive polymer is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene copolymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate, and polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer [instant specification, 0021].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Thus the battery taught by Zeng should inherently have an overall hardness of ≥ 200 N.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, wherein the separator winding starting layer (Zeng, 31; figure 2), corresponding to the inner separator of the claim, and a winding sub-layer (Zeng, 33; figure 2), corresponding to the outer separator of the claim, are double-layered structures [Zeng, 0009], however, Zeng is silent to teach on the separator being a water-based, an oil-based mix coating separator, or a pure oil-based separator.
Yang teaches a water-based high viscosity coated separator [Yang, 0026].
Yang and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the water-based separator as taught by Yang because such modification would result in a polymer with a relatively low swelling rate when the separator is soaked in the electrolyte [Yang, 0013].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, wherein the separator comprises a base film, a positive electrode adhesive polymer layer and a negative electrode adhesive polymer layer disposed on both sides of the base film, wherein the adhesive polymer layer corresponds to the adhesive surface of the claim [Yang, 0011]. However, modified Zeng is silent to teach on the adhesive polymer layer comprising a polymer listed in the claim.
Yang teaches the binder, corresponding to the adhesive polymer of the claim, in the adhesive polymer layer, wherein the binder is a positive electrode adhesive polymer [Yang, 0015], is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride tetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoroethylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride hexafluoropropylene polymers [Yang, 0017] or pure styrene latex, styrene-acrylic latex, styrene-butadiene polymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, styrene-butadiene latex, polybutyl methacrylate, polyacrylate polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylic acid, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate, polyurethane, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyimide, and polyvinyl acetate [Yang, 0018].
Yang and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the list of possible adhesive polymers as taught by Yang because such modification would improve the adhesion between the separator and electrode sheets, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, but is silent to teach on the ceramic layer comprises ceramic particles and an adhesive polymer, and a content of the ceramic particle’s accounts for 85 to 92% of the total amount of the ceramic layer.
Yang teaches the aqueous polymer slurry C and D, corresponding to the adhesive layer comprising the adhesive polymer, are coated onto the ceramic surface [Yang, 0067], therefore indicating the ceramic layer comprises the adhesive polymer. Both the positive and negative ceramic layers include ceramic particles [Yang, 0022], wherein the content of the ceramic powder within the ceramic slurry A and B is 75 to 90 wt% of the slurry [Yang, 0035 & 0037].
Yang and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the content of the ceramic power as taught by Yang because such modification would improve the adhesion between the separator and electrode sheets, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 17, but is silent to teach on the ceramic particles are selected from at least one of alumina, boehmite and magnesia particles.
Yang teaches the ceramic particles in the ceramic layers are selected from at least one of alumina, boehmite, zinc oxide, calcium oxide, zirconium oxide, magnesium oxide, silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, cerium dioxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, and barium titanate [Yang, 0023].
Yang and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the ceramic particles taught by Yang because such modification would improve the adhesion between the separator and electrode sheets, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 17, but is silent to teach on the size distribution of the ceramic particles is: D10 particle size of 0.15 to 0.3 μm , D50 particle size of 0.35 to 0.45 μm, D90 particle size of 0.6 μm to 0.8 μm and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the size distribution of the ceramic particles is: D10 particle size of 0.15 to 0.3 μm , D50 particle size of 0.35 to 0.45 μm, D90 particle size of 0.6 μm to 0.8 μm and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm, Yang teaches the ceramic layers include ceramic particles, with a preferred particle size between 0.1 μm to 5 μm [Yang, 0022]. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious, through routine experimentation, to optimize the particle size distribution of the ceramic particles within the ceramic layer to be D10 particle size of 0.15 to 0.3 μm , D50 particle size of 0.35 to 0.45 μm, D90 particle size of 0.6 μm to 0.8 μm and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm, to achieve the most desirable result and improve the adhesion between the separator and electrode sheets, thereby improving the cycle life and safety performance of the battery cell [Yang, 0019].
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al, CN 205828578 U (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Yang et al, CN 111129406 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Zhou et al, CN 110444718 A and Huang et al, US 20190198840 A1
Regarding Claim 2, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the wet peeling force being determined by steps S1-S5.
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the wet peeling force being determined by steps S1-S5, Zhou teaches a method for preparing a ceramic composite membrane [Zhou, 0010], wherein a mixed electrolyte was used to wet the surface of the separator, then the electrode sheets and the separator were stacked sequentially to 4 layers. The separator was then hot pressed at 85 °C and 2 MPa for 10 minutes, after cooling the peel force was then tested [Zhou, 0121] by applying a layer of double-sided tape to the steel plate, wherein the diaphragm was placed flat and pressed, a test tape was applied on top, then a pressure roller was rolled over [Zhou, 0123], then one end of the tape was torn to the middle of the sample and a 180° peel testing using a tensile testing matching was performed [Zhou, 0124], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Zhou, because such modification would result in a greater adhesion, as shown in table 2 of Zhou [Zhou, 0128]. Further, Huang teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate with an inorganic coating layer and an organic particle coating layer [Huang, 0024], wherein the peeling force can specifically be measured by cutting a sample into strips having a width of 20 mm, affixing double-sided tape to a stainless steel plate, and then uniformly affixing the strips to the double sided tape and performing the measurement of the peeling force [Huang, 0046], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Huang because such method would result in an improved bonding force with the porous substrate [Huang, 0058]. Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the method for determining the wet peeling of the separator based on the requirements of the invention.
Moreover, the limitations “steps S1-S5” are product-by-process limitations and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on a dry peeling force of the first straight section of the inner and outer separator each being less than 8 N/m, or the dry peeling force being determined by steps S1-S3.
Zhou teaches a method for preparing a ceramic composite membrane [Zhou, 0010], wherein the dry pressing results in a peeling force (N/m), corresponding to the dry peeling force, shown in table 2 of Zhou, wherein embodiments 1-4 have a peeling force between 6.89 to 8.01 N/m [Zhou, 0128], wherein all but embodiment 4 are less than 8 N/m as required by the claim.
Zhou and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the dry pressing peeling force results taught by Zhou because such modification would result in a greater adhesion, as shown in table 2 of Zhou [Zhou, 0128].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the dry peeling force being determined by steps S1-S3, Zhou teaches a method for preparing a ceramic composite membrane [Zhou, 0010], wherein the separator and the electrode sheets are stacked sequentially to 4 layers, then hot pressed at 85 °C and 2 MPa for 10 minutes, after cooling the peel force was then tested [Zhou, 0120] by applying a layer of double-sided tape to the steel plate, wherein the diaphragm was placed flat and pressed, a test tape was applied on top, then a pressure roller was rolled over [Zhou, 0123] then one end of the tape was torn to the middle of the sample and a 180° peel testing using a tensile testing matching was performed [Zhou, 0124], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Zhou, because such modification would result in a greater adhesion, as shown in table 2 of Zhou [Zhou, 0128]. Further, Huang teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate with an inorganic coating layer and an organic particle coating layer [Huang, 0024], wherein the peeling force can specifically be measured by cutting a sample into strips having a width of 20 mm, affixing double-sided tape to a stainless steel plate, and then uniformly affixing the strips to the double sided tape and performing the measurement of the peeling force [Huang, 0046], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Huang because such method would result in an improved bonding force with the porous substrate [Huang, 0058]. Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the method for determining the dry peeling of the inner and outer separators based on the requirements of the invention.
Moreover, the limitations “steps S1-S3” are product-by-process limitations and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al, CN 205828578 U (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Yang et al, CN 111129406 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Zhou et al, CN 110444718 A (English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 11, wherein the separator is a water-based separator [Yang, 0026], but is silent to teach on the adhesive layer comprising an adhesive polymer, a binder, and a dispersing agent, wherein the content of the adhesive polymer accounts for 92 to 96%, a content of the binder accounts for 2.5 to 5.5%, and a content of the dispersing agent accounts for 1.5 to 2.5% based on a total mass of the adhesive layer.
Zhou teaches a method for preparing a ceramic composite membrane [Zhou, 0010], including a polymer layer, corresponding to the adhesive layer of the claim, comprising a polymer power, corresponding to the adhesive polymer, a binder, thickener, and wetting agent, wherein the polymer power is 65 to 95 part, the binder is 1 to 20 parts [Zhou, 0030], and the thickener, which can be one or more of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and according to the instant specification, the dispersing agent may be a sodium or potassium carboxymethyl cellulose [instant specification, 0055],therefore corresponds to the dispersing agent of the claim, in 0.1 to 5 parts [Zhou, 0030].
Zhou and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the mixture for the polymer layer, corresponding to the adhesive layer of the claim, as taught by Zhou because such modifications would result in an enhance adhesion of the polymer layer [Zhou, 0009].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al, CN 205828578 U (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Yang et al, CN 111129406 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Zhou et al, CN 110444718 A (English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Zeng teaches on the lithium-ion battery of claim 4, but is silent to teach on the thickness of the adhesive layer being 0.5 μm to 3 μm or having a packing density of 0.6 g/m2 to 3.0 g/m2.
Zhou teaches the thickness of the polymer layer, corresponding to the adhesive layer of the claim, has a thickness between 1 μm to 10 μm [Zhou, 0045].
Zhou and Zeng are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Zeng to include the thickness of the polymer layer as taught by Zhou because such modification would result in an enhance adhesion of the polymer layer [Zhou, 0009].
While modified Zeng does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer with a packing density of 0.6 g/m2 to 3.0 g/m2, Yang teaches the coating surface density of the aqueous polymer slurry C and D is between 0.2 g/m2 to 1 g/m2 [Yang, 0048 & 0049], wherein the polymer slurry C and D comprise a dispersant, wetting agent and binding polymer [Yang, 0038 & 0040]. Further, the binder in the adhesive polymer layer, is a positive electrode adhesive polymer [Yang, 0015], is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride tetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoroethylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride hexafluoropropylene polymers [Yang, 0017] or pure styrene latex, styrene-acrylic latex, styrene-butadiene polymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, styrene-butadiene latex, polybutyl methacrylate, polyacrylate polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylic acid, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate, polyurethane, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyimide, and polyvinyl acetate [Yang, 0018], wherein the instant specification teaches the adhesive polymer is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene copolymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate, and polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer [instant specification, 0021].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Thus the battery taught by modified Zeng should inherently a packing density of 0.6 g/m2 to 3.0 g/m2.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al, CN 205828578 U (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation), Yang et al, CN 111129406 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) Zhou et al, CN 110444718 A and Huang et al, US 20190198840 A1, as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Zeng teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 10, but is silent to teach on when a dry peeling is performed, each of the inner separator and the outer separator has an adhesive transfer area ratio of 20 to 40%.
While modified Zeng does not specifically teach when a dry peeling is performed, each of the inner separator and the outer separator has an adhesive transfer area ratio of 20 to 40%, Zhou teaches a dry pressing results in a peeling force (N/m), corresponding to the dry peeling force, shown in table 2 of Zhou, wherein embodiments 1-4 have a peeling force between 6.89 to 8.01 N/m [Zhou, 0128], wherein the dry peeling force is determined by stacking the separator and electrode sheets sequentially to 4 layers, then hot pressed at 85 °C and 2 MPa for 10 minutes, after cooling the peel force was then tested [Zhou, 0120] by applying a layer of double-sided tape to the steel plate, wherein the diaphragm was placed flat and pressed, a test tape was applied on top, then a pressure roller was rolled over [Zhou, 0123] then one end of the tape was torn to the middle of the sample and a 180° peel testing using a tensile testing matching was performed [Zhou, 0124], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Zhou, because such modification would result in a greater adhesion, as shown in table 2 of Zhou [Zhou, 0128]. Further, Huang teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate with an inorganic coating layer and an organic particle coating layer [Huang, 0024], wherein the peeling force can specifically be measured by cutting a sample into strips having a width of 20 mm, affixing double-sided tape to a stainless steel plate, and then uniformly affixing the strips to the double sided tape and performing the measurement of the peeling force [Huang, 0046], therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separator of Zeng to include the method taught by Huang because such method would result in an improved bonding force with the porous substrate [Huang, 0058]. Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious, through routine experimentation, to optimize each of the inner and outer separators to have an adhesive transfer area ratio of 20 to 40% when a dry peeling is performed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, NIKI BAKHATIARI can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722