DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B: drawn to Fig. 4 in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner followed up with a call on 1/5/2026 to confirm the election of claims 1-13.
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.
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.
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 1,2,3,5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230178851 A1) and further in view of Jeon (US 20110111305 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery (claim 1, [electrochemical device]), comprising:
an electrode assembly (para. 0210, [electrode assembly by assembling a plurality of cells or electrodes] in combination with the separator of the disclosure) and an electrolyte (para. 0202, [the electrochemical device comprises an electrolyte solution]), wherein the electrode assembly comprises an anode plate (claim 14), a cathode plate (claim 14), and a separator located between the anode plate and the cathode plate (claim 14);
the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (para. 0202, [electrolyte solution may comprise … a lithium salt]) and an organic solvent (para. 0202, [electrolyte solution), the organic solvent comprises a linear carboxylate compound (para. 0203, [methyl formate, methyl acetate, ethyl propionate, methyl propionate]), and
PNG
media_image1.png
486
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the separator comprises a substrate (para. 0046, and Fig. 1, item 10), a first coating layer (Fig. 1, item 20), and a second coating layer (Fig. 1, item 30), wherein the substrate comprises a first surface (See Fig. 1 above) and a second surface (See Fig. 1 above), the first surface and the second surface being back to back with each other (See Fig. 1 above), the first coating layer and the second coating layer are disposed on the first surface and the second surface respectively (See Fig. 1 above), the first coating layer faces toward the anode plate (para. 0210. [the separator may be interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]. Examiner recognizes that one surface of the substrate will be closer to the negative electrode and the other surface of the substrate will be closer to the positive electrode) and the second coating layer faces toward the cathode plate (para. 0210. [the separator may be interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]. Examiner recognizes that one surface of the substrate will be closer to the negative electrode and the other surface of the substrate will be closer to the positive electrode), the first coating layer comprises a first binder (para. 0042, [a first porous coating layer … comprising … a first binder]. Examiner notes that since the first binder is disposed on all or part of the surface of the first inorganic particles, Lee’s first binder is collectively composed of both the first binder and the first inorganic particles.) and the second coating layer comprises a second binder (para. 0043, [a second porous coating layer … comprising … a second binder]. Examiner notes that since the second binder coats at least part of the surface of the second inorganic particles (para. 0043), Lee’s second binder is collectively composed of both the second binder and the second inorganic particles.)
Lee also teaches:
a median particle size of the second binder is greater than a median particle size of the first binder (Lee, para. 0080, [the average particle size of the first inorganic particles may be smaller than the average particle size of the second inorganic particles]).
Examiner notes that the first inorganic particles are part of the first binder and the second inorganic particles are part of the second binder.
Lee is silent regarding the mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound in the organic solvent, but teaches that the organic solvent may include aprotic organic solvents such as ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and ethyl propionate [linear carboxylate compound], to a list a few (para. 0203).
Jeon, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound in the organic solvent is 10%–70% (Jeon, para. 0015, ethyl propionate mixed at a volume ratio of 30 to 90)(Jeon, para. 0015, [a non-linear carbonate based mixed organic solvent in which (a) cyclic carbonate having ethylene carbonate or a mixture of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate and (b) ethyl propionate are mixed at a volume ratio (a:b) in the range from 10:90 to 70:30]).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added the linear carboxylate compound [ethyl propionate] of Lee’s electrolyte in a volume ratio of 30 to 90, as taught by Jeon, in order to improve low-temperature discharging characteristics and life cycle to the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Jeon (para. 0021).
PNG
media_image2.png
130
365
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the linear carboxylate compound is selected from one or more of compounds shown in the following formula I:
formula I, wherein R1 is selected from a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a hydroxyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted alkoxy group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, or a substituted or unsubstituted aryloxy group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, and R2 is selected from a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, or a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (para. 0203, [methyl formate, methyl acetate, ethyl propionate, methyl propionate]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee is silent regarding the median particle sizes of the first and second binders, and does not teach that the first binder is 0.3 μm ≤ D50 ≤ 3 μm, and the median particle size of the second binder is 4 μm ≤ D50 ≤ 15 μm.
However, Lee teaches that the first inorganic particle size of the first coating layer (which is contained in the first binder) is smaller than the second inorganic particle size (which is contained in the second binder) of the second coating layer (Lee, para. 0080, [the average particle size of the first inorganic particles may be smaller than the average particle size of the second inorganic particles). The smaller particle size of the first inorganic particle in the first coating layer helps with heat resistance of the coating layer (Lee, para. 0080, [the average particle size of the first inorganic particles may be smaller than the average particle size of the second inorganic particles. As the average particle size of the first inorganic particles is smaller, the first inorganic particles may be denser per unit volume, resulting in improved heat resistance]) and the larger particle size of the second inorganic particle in the second coating layer helps with the adhesion of the coating layer onto the separator (para. 0087, [the resistance may not rise and good adhesion may be ensured]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed, to have optimized the first binder particle size and the second binder particle size to be proportional with the first inorganic particle and second inorganic particle, respectively, in order to improve heat resistance of separator (para. 0086, [to suppress the thermal contraction of the separator]), in the case of the first binder, and in order to ensure adequate adhesion of the coating layer to the separator (Lee, para. 0087), in the case of the second binder, without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first coating layer is 0.2 μm–4 μm (para. 0061, [may have the thickness ranging 1 μm to 5 μm]), and a thickness of the second coating layer is 5 μm–20 μm (para. 0073, [may range 0.5 μm to 5 μm]).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches an electronic apparatus (para. 0003, [electronic devices] - In the background art (para. 0003 and 0010), Lee teaches that the technical problem serves to provide solutions for improved electrochemical devices used as a power source of electronic devices), comprising a battery (claim 1, [electrochemical device]), the battery comprises
an electrode assembly (para. 0210, [electrode assembly by assembling a plurality of cells or electrodes] in combination with the separator of the disclosure) and an electrolyte (para. 0202, [the electrochemical device comprises an electrolyte solution]), wherein the electrode assembly comprises an anode plate (claim 14), a cathode plate (claim 14), and a separator located between the anode plate and the cathode plate (claim 14);
the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (para. 0202, [electrolyte solution may comprise … a lithium salt]) and an organic solvent (para. 0202, [electrolyte solution), the organic solvent comprises a linear carboxylate compound (para. 0203, [methyl formate, methyl acetate, ethyl propionate, methyl propionate]), and
PNG
media_image1.png
486
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the separator comprises a substrate (para. 0046, and Fig. 1, item 10), a first coating layer
(Fig. 1, item 20), and a second coating layer (Fig. 1, item 30), wherein the substrate comprises a first surface (See Fig. 1 above) and a second surface (See Fig. 1 above), the first surface and the second surface being back to back with each other (See Fig. 1 above), the first coating layer and the second coating layer are disposed on the first surface and the second surface respectively (See Fig. 1 above), the first coating layer faces toward the anode plate (para. 0210. [the separator may be interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]. Examiner recognizes that one surface of the substrate will be closer to the negative electrode and the other surface of the substrate will be closer to the positive electrode) and the second coating layer faces toward the cathode plate (para. 0210. [the separator may be interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]. Examiner recognizes that one surface of the substrate will be closer to the negative electrode and the other surface of the substrate will be closer to the positive electrode), the first coating layer comprises a first binder (para. 0042, [a first porous coating layer … comprising … a first binder]. Examiner notes that since the first binder is disposed on all or part of the surface of the first inorganic particles, Lee’s first binder is collectively composed of both the first binder and the first inorganic particles.) and the second coating layer comprises a second binder (para. 0043, [a second porous coating layer … comprising … a second binder]. Examiner notes that since the second binder coats at least part of the surface of the second inorganic particles (para. 0043), Lee’s second binder is collectively composed of both the second binder and the second inorganic particles.)
Lee also teaches:
a median particle size of the second binder is greater than a median particle size of the first binder (Lee, para. 0080, [the average particle size of the first inorganic particles may be smaller than the average particle size of the second inorganic particles]).
Examiner notes that the first inorganic particles are part of the first binder and the second inorganic particles are part of the second binder.
Lee is silent regarding the mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound in the organic solvent, but teaches that the organic solvent may include aprotic organic solvents such as ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and ethyl propionate [linear carboxylate compound], to a list a few (para. 0203).
Jeon, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound in the organic solvent is 10%–70% (Jeon, para. 0015, ethyl propionate mixed at a volume ratio of 30 to 90)(Jeon, para. 0015, [a non-linear carbonate based mixed organic solvent in which (a) cyclic carbonate having ethylene carbonate or a mixture of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate and (b) ethyl propionate are mixed at a volume ratio (a:b) in the range from 10:90 to 70:30]).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added the linear carboxylate compound [ethyl propionate] of Lee’s electrolyte in a volume ratio of 30 to 90, as taught by Jeon, in order to improve low-temperature discharging characteristics and life cycle to the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Jeon (para. 0021).
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230178851 A1) and further in view of Jeon (US 20110111305 A1) and Kim (US-20220102810-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1, and further teaches that the first binder (para. 0020) and the second binder (para. 0021) are each independently at least one selected from the group consisting of homopolymers or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropene, acrylic acid, styrene, and butadiene (See para. 0020 for the first binder materials and para. 0021 for the second binder materials).
Modified Lee does not teach wherein at least one of the first binder and the second binder is a core-shell structure.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a separator (abstract, [separator]) including an adhesive binder having a core-shell structure, (abstract, [an adhesive binder having a core-shell structure]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Lee’s binder to have a core-shell structure, as taught by Kim, in order to exhibit excellent cycle-life characteristics compared to a separator without an adhesive binder, as taught by Kim (para. 0202, [the separator according to Example 1 included an adhesive binder having a core - shell structure but exhibited equal or more excellent cycle - life characteristics than the one according to Comparative Example 1 including no adhesive binder]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the second coating layer further comprises a third binder.
Kim teaches wherein the second coating layer further comprises a third binder (Kim, para. 0055 [the coating layer on the porous substrate may include a heat resistant binder]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a third binder to the Modified Lee’s second coating layer, as taught by Kim, in order to secure heat resistance to reduce the heat shrinkage rate at high temperature of the separator, as taught by Kim (para. 0087). Furthermore, Kim teaches that the combination of a heat resistance binder [third binder of second coating layer] and an adhesive binder [second binder of second coating layer] have a trade-off relationship with each other, and by including both, each binder independently exists so that the separator has excellent heat resistance and adhesive strength may be implemented (para. 0087, [The heat resistance and adhesive strength are in a trade - off relationship with each other . In an embodiment ,by further including the adhesive binder together with the heat - resistant binder , the heat - resistant binder and the adhesive binder each independently exist in the coating layer , so that a separator having excellent heat resistance and adhesive strength may be implemented]).
Modified Lee is silent regarding the mass percentage of the second binder in the second coating layer and a mass percentage of the third binder in the second coating layer.
However, modified Lee teaches that the second binder serves to help the coating layer adhere to the separator (Lee, para. 0087, [the resistance may not rise and good adhesion may be ensured] [second binder/second inorganic particle]) and teaches that the third binder serves to reduce heat shrinkage rate at high temperature of the separator (Kim, para. 0087).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the second binder’s mass percentage and the third binder’s mass percentage, in order to improve adhesion (Lee, para. 0087, [second binder/second inorganic polymer]) and to reduce heat shrinkage rate (Kim, para. 0087, [third binder]), as taught by Modified Lee. It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a mass percentage of 85% - 95% for the second binder in the second coating layer and a mass percentage of 5% to 15% for the third binder in the second coating layer without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the separator further comprises first and second inorganic particles (para. 0078) that are made of ceramic materials (para. 0078, example of a ceramic material is BaTiO3).
Modified Lee does not teach a ceramic layer, the ceramic layer is disposed on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the substrate, and the ceramic layer is disposed between the substrate and the first coating layer and/or the second coating layer.
Kim teaches a ceramic layer (Kim, para. 0120, [the inorganic particles may have a sheet shape]), the ceramic layer is disposed on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the substrate (Kim, Fig. 4 shows item 2 [inorganic particles] disposed on both the first surface and the second surface of the substrate), and the ceramic layer [Kim, Fig. 4, item 2] is disposed between the substrate [Kim, Fig. 4, separator] and the first coating layer and the second coating layer (Kim, Fig. 4, item 10’).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have inserted a ceramic sheet between the substrate and coating layer of Modified Lee’s separator, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent the separator from being sharply shrunk due to temperature increases, as taught by Kim (para. 0120).
Claims 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230178851 A1) and further in view of Jeon (US 20110111305 A1), and the machine translation of Lee (KR20170022042A), herein referred to as Lee 042.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein a weight per unit area of the first coating layer is 0.5 mg/5000 mm2–5 mg/5000 mm2, and a weight per unit area of the second coating layer is 2.0 mg/5000 mm2–10 mg/5000 mm2.
Lee 042, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein a weight per unit area of the first coating layer is 0.5 mg/5000 mm2–5 mg/5000 mm2, and a weight per unit area of the second coating layer is 2.0 mg/5000 mm2–10 mg/5000 mm2 (Lee 042, Description, para. 32, [that the adhesive layer formed on one side or both sides of the separation membrane, or between the separation membrane and the electrode can have an application amount of 0.1 g/m2 to 0.5g/m2]).
Examiner notes that:
0.1 g/m2 is equivalent to 0.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
0.5 g/m2 is equivalent to 2.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a loading amount for Lee’s coating layer, as taught by Lee 042, in order to apply a sufficient amount. If the adhesive layer is beyond the range, it may act as a resistance and may adversely affect the performance of the battery. If the adhesive layer is too small, it is not possible to effectively prevent lifting of the separator and the electrode, and it is preferable that the electrode has the above range value (Lee 042, Description, para. 33).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein a weight per unit area of the first coating layer is 2 mg/5000 mm2–4 mg/5000 mm2.
Lee 042, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein a weight per unit area of the first coating layer is 2 mg/5000 mm2–4 mg/5000 mm2 (Lee 042, Description, para. 32, [that the adhesive layer formed on one side or both sides of the separation membrane, or between the separation membrane and the electrode can have an application amount of 0.1 g/m2 to 0.5g/m2]).
Examiner notes that:
0.1 g/m2 is equivalent to 0.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
0.5 g/m2 is equivalent to 2.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a loading amount for Lee’s coating layer, as taught by Lee 042, in order to apply a sufficient amount. If the adhesive layer is beyond the range, it may act as a resistance and may adversely affect the performance of the battery. If the adhesive layer is too small, it is not possible to effectively prevent lifting of the separator and the electrode, and it is preferable that the electrode has the above range value (Lee 042, Description, para. 33).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein a weight per unit area of the second coating layer is 4.0 mg/5000 mm2–8 mg/5000 mm2.
Lee 042 teaches wherein a weight per unit area of the second coating layer is 0.5 mg/5000 mm2–2.5 mg/5000 mm2 (Lee 042, Description, para. 32, [that the adhesive layer formed on one side or both sides of the separation membrane, or between the separation membrane and the electrode can have an application amount of 0.1 g/m2 to 0.5g/m2]).
Examiner notes that:
0.1 g/m2 is equivalent to 0.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
0.5 g/m2 is equivalent to 2.5 mg/ 5000 mm2
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a weight per unit area of 4.0 mg/5000 mm2 for modified Lee’s second coating layer. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230178851 A1) and further in view of Jeon (US 20110111305 A1) and Matsuo (US 20140120423 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kim teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein the first coating layer further comprises a thickener and the mass of the thickener accounts for 0.5%–12% of the total mass of the first coating layer.
Matsuo, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a coating layer comprising a thickener and the mass of the thickener accounts for 0.5% - 12% (Matsuo, para. 0160) of the total mass of the coating layer (Matsuo, para. 0160 [any one of these known additives may be used. The addition amount is 10 parts or less by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total amount of the conductive particles, the binder and the organic acid or derivatives thereof]).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated a thickener into Modified Lee’s first coating layer, as taught by Matsuo, in order to adjust the thickness of the coating layer (para. 0158 of Matsuo teaches that it is easy to adjust the coating thickness of the coating layer by adjusting the coating liquid and para. 0160 further discusses how the coating liquid can be modified).
Modified Lee is silent regarding the mass percentage of the first binder in the first coating layer.
However, modified Lee teaches that the first binder serves to help the coating layer adhere to the separator (Lee, para. 0086, [to suppress thermal contraction of the separator when there is an internal or external change]-via the first inorganic particles containing the first binder polymers).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the first binder’s mass percentage, in order to heat resistance (Lee, para. 0086), as taught by Lee. It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a mass percentage of 88% - 99.5% for the first binder in the first coating layer without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Lee teaches the battery according to claim 7, and wherein the first coating layer further comprises a wetting agent (Matsuo, para. 0160, [may further contain additives such as dispersing agents]), the mass of the first binder accounts for 88%–92.5% of the total mass of the first coating layer (See claim 7 above), the mass of the thickener accounts for 0.5%–2% of the total mass of the first coating layer (Matsuo, para. 0160, [any one of these known additives may be used. The addition amount is 10 parts or less by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total amount of the conductive particles, the binder and the organic acid or derivatives thereof]), and a mass of the wetting agent accounts for 7%–10% of the total mass of the first coating layer (Matsuo, para. 0160, [any one of these known additives may be used. The addition amount is 10 parts or less by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total amount of the conductive particles, the binder and the organic acid or derivatives thereof]).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721