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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 improperly recite the Markush group in the form of “selected from A, B and C”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. A proper Markush groups may be recited as "...selected from the group consisting of A, B and C" or "...selected from A, B or C." See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2022/0059909A1(Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a separator comprises a porous substrate layer ([0079] and [0092]), a coating layer in a first region of the substrate layer and a polymer adhesive layer in a second region of the substate layer ([0090], [0091], [0096] and Fig. 7A), wherein the coating layer in the first region may include a combination of a ceramic and a binder such as a fluoropolymer material ([0090] and [0092]), and the thickness of the coating layer in the first region is equal to the thickness of the adhesive layer in the second region (Fig. 7A and [0097]).
Lee further teaches that the second region contains only the adhesive layer (Fig 7A and [0097]), thus 100% of the adhesive polymer, which meets the claimed content of the second polymer.
Regarding claims 5-8, Lee teaches an electronic device comprises a battery pack ([0042] and Fig. 1), wherein the battery pack comprises a secondary battery cell, which meets a battery module, wherein the secondary battery has a winding-type electrode assembly comprising the separator([0009]-[0010], Fig. 4 and Fig. 7B) , and wherein the adhesive layer region of the separator is located at the inner circle of the winding structure (Fig. 7B, 745).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US2015/0372277A1 (Honda).
The teachings of Lee are set forth above.
Lee further teaches the adhesive layer comprises a polymer that has an adhesive force when exposed to heat or pressure ([0096]).
Lee does not teach the instantly claimed polymer.
Honda teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride can be coated to a separator to ensure sufficient mechanical properties of an adhesive layer, even after being subjected to pressure bonding or hot pressing ([0058]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyvinylidene fluoride of Honda in the adhesive layer of Lee. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Honda that to do so would predictably ensure sufficient mechanical properties of an adhesive layer when exposed to pressure and hot pressing ([0058]), which is desirable in Lee ([0096]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US2020/0168872A1(Fu), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The teachings of Lee are set forth above.
While teaching the coating layer in the first region may include a combination of a ceramic and a polymer binder material ([0090] and [0092]), Lee does not teach the instantly claimed weight content of the ceramic particle, neither that of the polymer.
Fu teaches a separator coating layer over a porous substrate comprises an inorganic alumina and a binder polyacrylonitrile in a ratio of 91:9 by mass ([0007], [0046] and [0082]), i.e., 91% of ceramic particles and 10% polymer binder, which meets the claimed weight content of the ceramic particle and the polymer, respectively.
Fu teaches that such coating provides high thermal stability and a strong binding effect, binding the inorganic particles together, or binding the separator and the electrodes together ([0044] and [0046]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the relative content of ceramic particles and polymer binder of Fu, in the coating layer of Lee. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Fu that to do so would predictably provide high thermal stability and a strong binding effect ([0044] and [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766