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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a transverse direction” (Claim 1, Lines 6-7; Claim 1, Line 7). Applicant describes the “transverse direction” as “the width direction of the separator, i.e., the direction perpendicular to the MD (machine direction or longitudinal direction) of the separator.” (see Specification, pg. 10, Lines 19-21). However, “the transverse direction” remains unclear because a multitude of width directions exist which are perpendicular to the machine direction of the separator.
Additionally, Applicant recites, "a thickness" (Claim 1, Line 6) and "a thickness" (Claim 1, Line 7). Applicant describes "a thickness" with respect to "the width direction of the separator" (see Specification, pg. 10, lines 19-21). However, the aforementioned recitations of "a thickness" from Claim 1 remain unclear because “a thickness” may correspond to a multitude of thickness directions, each of which are simultaneously in a width direction of the separator and perpendicular to the machine direction of the separator (see Specification, pg. 10, Lines 19-21). Claims 2-4 are also rejected based on their dependence from Claim 1. Appropriate action is required.
Per Claim 4, Applicant recites, “one end of the two end portions of the separator has a length corresponding to…” (Claim 4, Line 2). Recitation of “a length” is unclear because it may correspond to a multitude of various lengths provided in “one end of the two end portions of the separator”.
Additionally, Applicant recites “a total length … in a width direction.” (Claim 4, Line 3). “A total length … in a width direction” is unclear because “a total length” may correspond to a total length comprising discrete elements provided in the separator or a total length of the separator as a whole. Moreover, “in a width direction” is unclear because it may correspond to a multitude of width directions, each of which are perpendicular to the machine direction of the separator (see Specification, pg. 10, Lines 19-21). Appropriate action is required.
Per Claim 5, Applicant recites, “a transverse direction” (Claim 5, Lines 10-11; Claim 5, Line 11) and "a thickness" (Claim 5, Line 10; Claim 5, Line 11). Each of the aforementioned recitations from Claim 5 are unclear for the reasons provided above in addressing Claim 1. Claims 6-11 are also rejected based on their dependence from Claim 5. Appropriate action is required.
Per Claim 9, Applicant recites, “one end of the two end portions of the separator has a length corresponding to…” (Claim 9, Lines 1-2) and “a total length … in a width direction.” (Claim 9, Lines 2-3). Each of the aforementioned recitations from Claim 9 are unclear for the reasons provided above in addressing Claim 4. Appropriate action is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0285064 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatta teaches a separator 1 (see Hatta et al. [Paragraphs 0044-0046]; Hatta et al. Annotated Figure 1 below) for an electrochemical device, comprising:
a porous polymer substrate 2 (see [0047-0051]; Fig. 1 below); and
a porous coating layer 3 on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate 2 (see [0052-0056]; Figs. 1, 4C, 4D below), the porous coating layer 3 comprising a binder polymer [0054] and inorganic particles [0054], wherein
the separator 1 has a central portion (see [0058, 0089]; Figs. 4C, 4D below) and two end portions (see [0058]; Figs. 4C, 4D below), wherein a thickness of the separator 1 at the two end portions in a transverse direction (TD) is larger than a thickness of the separator 1 at the central portion in the TD (see [0068-0069]; the transverse direction is interpreted herein as corresponding to the thickness direction of the separator).
Hatta et al. Annotated Figures 1 and 2
PNG
media_image1.png
838
1321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hatta et al. Annotated Figure 4C, 4D
PNG
media_image2.png
506
1438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In a specific example (see Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2; [0393]), Hatta teaches that the separator had a dotted-shaped surface (see [0388]; Fig. 4C above) and comprised a 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate [0339], and a 7 μm thick porous coating layer [0339, 0342] which was formed on both surfaces of the porous polymer substrate (i.e., 14 μm total thickness). Hatta teaches that the thickness of the porous coating layer at the central portion of the separator was 1 μm (i.e., the lowest part among the plural concavities in the porous coating layer (see [0089]; Fig. 4C above). Hatta also teaches that the thickness of the porous coating layer at the end portions of the separator was 7 μm (i.e., the highest part among the convexities provided in the porous coating layer [0058, 0079]). Accordingly, Hatta teaches that the total thickness of the separator at the two end portions (i.e., 23 μm, corresponding to the 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate and two 7 μm thick porous coating layers provided on both sides of the substrate) was larger than the thickness of the separator at a central portion (i.e., 11 μm, corresponding to the 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate and the 1 μm thick concavities in the porous coating layer provided on both sides of the porous polymer substrate). Additionally, in another specific example (see Example 2-53, pg. 34, Table 2; [0393]) Hatta teaches a separator having a pinhole-shaped surface, as illustrated in Fig. 4D above.
Per Claim 3, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Hatta further teaches that the two end portions of the separator 1 in the TD comprise a region having a gradually increasing thickness along a direction away from the central portion in the TD. (See [0058, 0060, 0070]; Figs. 4C, 4D above). Specifically, Hatta teaches that the outermost surface of the separator 1 is produced into cross-sectional concavo-convex shapes [0060], the highest part among the plural convexities in the thickness direction corresponding to the end portions of the separator 1 in the transverse direction (see Figs 4C, 4D above). Additionally, Hatta teaches the central portion (see Figs. 4C, 4D above) as the lowest part among the plural concavities in the porous coating layer 3 (see [0089]; Figs. 4C, 4D above). The concave or convex shapes illustrated in Figs. 2, 4C, and 4D above all have a gradual change in thickness in the transverse direction as you move in a direction away from the central portion.
Regarding Claim 5, Hatta teaches an electrode assembly 20 (see [0138]; Fig. 7 below) comprising:
Hatta et al. Annotated Figure 7
PNG
media_image3.png
520
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an electrode 22 (see [0138, 0160, 0337]; Fig. 7 above; Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2) comprising a current collector 22A (see [0160, 0337]; Fig. 7 above) and an active material layer 22B (see [0160, 0393]; Fig. 7 above) present on at least one surface of the current collector (see [0160]; Fig. 7 above); and
Hatta et al. Annotated Figures 1 and 4C
PNG
media_image4.png
444
1441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a separator 1 (see [0135, 0176, 0388]; Figs. 1, 4C above; Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2) present on at least one surface of the electrode (see [0348]; Fig. 7 above), wherein the separator comprises:
a porous polymer substrate (see [0339]; Fig. 4C above); and
a porous coating layer 3 [0339-0344] on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (see [0339, 0342]; Figs. 4C above), the porous coating layer 3 comprising a binder polymer [0339] and inorganic particles [0339], wherein
the separator (see [0176, 0388]; Fig. 4C above; Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2) has a central portion and two end portions (see [0058, 0089]; Fig. 4C above), wherein a thickness of the separator at the two end portions (i.e., 23 μm) in a transverse direction (TD) is larger than a thickness of the separator at a central portion (i.e., 11 μm) in the TD. (See [0068]; Fig. 4C above; The transverse direction is interpreted herein as the thickness direction with respect to the substrate material)
Specifically, Hatta teaches an electrode assembly 20 comprising a positive electrode 21 and a negative electrode 22, with a separator 1 (see Fig. 7 above) being interposed therebetween [0348].
In a specific example (see Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2; [0393]), Hatta teaches that the separator had a dotted-shaped surface (see [0388]; Fig. 4C above) and comprised a 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate [0339], and a 7 μm thick porous coating layer [0339, 0342] which was formed on both surfaces of the porous polymer substrate (i.e., 14 μm total thickness). Hatta teaches that the thickness of the porous coating layer at the central portion of the separator was 1 μm (i.e., the lowest part among the plural concavities in the porous coating layer (see [0089]; Fig. 4C above). Hatta also teaches that the thickness of the porous coating layer at the end portions of the separator was 7 μm (i.e., the highest part among the convexities provided in the porous coating layer [0058, 0079]). Accordingly, Hatta teaches that the total thickness of the separator at the two end portions (i.e., 23 μm, corresponding to the 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate and two 7 μm thick porous coating layers provided on both sides of the substrate) was larger than the thickness of the separator at a central portion (i.e., 11 μm, corresponding to the 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate and the 1 μm thick concavities in the porous coating layer provided on both sides of the porous polymer substrate). Additionally, in another specific example (see Example 2-53, pg. 34, Table 2; [0393]) Hatta teaches a separator having a pinhole shaped surface, as illustrated in Fig. 4D above.
Per Claim 10, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Hatta further teaches a secondary battery 10 comprising the electrode assembly 20 as defined in claim 5 (see [0135, 0138]; Figs. 4C, 6, 7 above). Specifically, Hatta teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10 (see [0138, 0393]; Fig. 6 above; Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2) wherein said secondary battery 10 comprises the electrode assembly 20 [0138] addressed in Claim 5 above.
Per Claim 11, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Hatta further teaches that the secondary battery 10 according to claim 10 is a lithium secondary battery (see [0162]).
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 2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0285064 A1).
Per Claim 2, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Hatta further teaches that the thickness of the separator 1 at the two end portions in the TD is larger than the thickness of the separator 1 at the central portion in the TD by 0% to 109%.
Hatta does not specifically teach the claimed range limitation of “by 5% to 100%”. However, Hatta teaches an overlapping range (i.e., by 0% to 109%) that encompasses the claimed range limitation of “by 5% to 100%”. Specifically, Hatta teaches the separator addressed in Claim 1 (see [0339]; Example 2-53, pg. 34, Table 2) comprising a 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate [0339] and a 7 μm thick porous coating layer 3 provided on both sides of the substrate 2 [0339] (see Fig. 1 below). The porous coating layer had a dotted shape (see Fig. 4C below) and was formed with plural convexities and concavities. The total thickness of the separator at the central portion was 11 μm (i.e., corresponding to the 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate with a 1 μm thick coating layer provided on both sides of the substrate). The total thickness of the separator at the end portions was 23 μm (i.e., the total thickness of the substrate and the combined 7 μm thickness at the end portions of the coating layer, provided on both sides of the substrate ). Therefore, the total thickness of the separator 1 ranged from 100% at the central portion (i.e., 11 μm thickness) to 209% (i.e., 23 μm) at the end portions, corresponding to a range in differential thickness of 0% to 109%.
Hatta et al. Annotated Figures 1 and 4C
PNG
media_image5.png
441
1433
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to the thickness of the separator 1 at the central portion, Hatta recognizes that the thickness of the concavities forming the central portion is a result effective variable [0068, 0094-0095]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatta’s thickness at the concavities comprising the central portion to differ from the thickness at the end portions by 5 to 100% for the purpose of effectively absorbing the expansion of the electrode [0068] and optimizing the characteristics of the battery [0095]. Further, the Federal Circuit emphasized in In re Wertheim that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Per Claim 4, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Hatta further teaches that one end of the two end portions of the separator has a length corresponding to 0.04% to 43% of a total length of the separator in a width direction. A “width direction” is interpreted herein as corresponding to the thickness direction of the separator.
Hatta does not specifically teach the claimed range of “0.1% to 10%”. However, Hatta teaches an overlapping range of 0.04% to 43% that encompasses the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%. Specifically, Hatta teaches that the concavo-convex shapes of the coating layer 3 are formed as a result of uneven distribution of particles and the resin material [0054] and that the end portions of the separator 1 are formed by the particles in the coating layer [0082]. Further, Hatta teaches that for specific examples which include an average particle size from 0.3 μm to 0.8 μm, primary particles are present having a range in average particle size from 0.01 μm to 10 μm, used in combination [0082].
In the specific example addressed in Claim 1 (see [0339]; Example 2-52, pg. 34, Table 2), inorganic alumina particles having an average particle size of 0.3 μm were used in the porous coating layer 3. The thickness (i.e., length) of the separator in the thickness direction at the end portions was 23 μm (i.e., 9 μm thick porous polymer substrate, 7 μm thick coating layer provided on both sides of the substrate). Considering the size of the primary particles in the coating layer as “a length” and using the range in primary particle size taught by Hatta (i.e., from 0.01 μm to 10 μm), one end of the two end portions of the separator has “a length” corresponding to 0.04% to 43% of a total length (i.e., 23 μm thickness) of the separator in a width direction (i.e., thickness direction).
With respect to the size of the primary particles present in the porous coating layer of the separator, Hatta recognizes that the average particle size of the primary particles is a result effective variable [0082]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatta’s teaching of the average size of the primary particles to constitute a range from 0.1% to 10% of the total thickness of the separator for the purpose of optimizing the strength of the separator and the smoothness of the coated surface [0082]. Further, the Federal Circuit emphasized in In re Wertheim that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Per Claim 6, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 5. In view of Claim 6, Hatta is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Accordingly, Hatta further teaches that the thickness of the separator 1 at the two end portions in the TD is larger than the thickness of the separator 1 at the central portion thereof in the TD by 5% to 100%.
Per Claim 9, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 5. In view of Claim 9, Hatta is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Accordingly, Hatta teaches that one end of the two end portions of the separator 1 has a length corresponding to 0.1% to 10% of a total length of the separator 1 in a width direction.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0285064 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 10998553 B1).
Per Claim 7, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Specifically, Hatta teaches the electrode assembly addressed in Claim 5 above. However, Hatta is silent regarding the shape of the active material layer of the electrode conforming to the shape of the porous coating layer provided on the surface of the separator at the two end portions in the transverse (i.e., thickness) direction.
Yao teaches an electrode assembly 400 comprising a first electrode 410, a second electrode 450, and a polyolefin separator 490 disposed therebetween (see Annotated Yao et al. Fig. 5 below; Column 13, Line 63 - Column 14, Line 3).
Yao et al. Annotated Figures 2 and 5
PNG
media_image6.png
648
1449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yao further teaches that the surfaces of both the porous coating layer and the active material layer are provided with concave or convex shapes, and that the shape of the active material layer conforms to shape of the porous coating of the separator (see Annotated Yao et al. Figs. 2 and 5 above). Yao further teaches that the interface between the active material layer and the porous coating layer of the separator comprises a non-planar interlocking region, which provides beneficial characteristics such as decreased interfacial resistance between the layers and reduced lithium plating on the electrode layer (see Yao et al. Col. 8, Lines 38-46).
Hatta et al. and Yao et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of battery electrode assemblies. A skilled artisan would have been capable of modifying the laminated interface between the separator and the electrode, comprising a separator having surface convex and concave shapes as taught by Hatta, such that the active material layer of the electrode conforms to the shape of the surface of the separator in a corresponding manner, as taught by Yao. The result of decreased interfacial resistance between the layers and reduced lithium plating on the electrode layer (see Yao et al. Col. 8, Lines 38-46) would also have been reasonably predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hatta by providing an active material layer which conforms to the shape of the surface of the separator in a corresponding manner, in view of Yao. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 (I). By providing an active material layer that conforms to the shape of the separator, the two end portions of the separator in the TD will have a shape corresponding to the shape of both ends of the active material layer in the TD, as claimed.
Per Claim 8, Hatta teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Hatta in view of Yao is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. As illustrated in Yao et al. Annotated Figures 2 and 5 above, Yao further teaches that the concave or convex shapes comprised in both the surface of the separator and in the active material layer all have a gradual change in thickness in the transverse direction as you move in a direction away from the central portion.
Accordingly, Hatta, further in view of Yao, teaches that the two end portions of the separator in the TD comprise a region having a gradually increasing thickness along a direction away from the central portion in the TD, and both ends of the active material layer in the TD include a region having a gradually decreasing thickness along a direction away from the central portion in the TD.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jerome Nash whose telephone number is (571)272-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 19 February 2026