DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending, wherein claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 are amended and claim 19 is newly added. Claims 1-19 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Aug. 2, 2023 and Jun. 28, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed Aug. 2, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. At least the following foreign references recited in IDS filed Aug. 2, 2023 are not in English language: KR ‘822, KR ‘057, KR ‘621, KR ‘173 and KR ‘136.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190319239 A1, hereafter Zhou).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6 and 9-10, Zhou teaches (See, at least Figs. 1-2) a separator for a rechargeable lithium battery, the separator comprising:
a ceramic layer (“2”+“1” in Fig. 2) comprising ceramic particles (e.g., “silicon oxides”, [0042]) and a binder (“a first binder”, [0042]), and
a functional layer (“3” in Fig. 2) on the ceramic layer and comprising inorganic particles ([0048]) and a binder (“second binder”, [0048]).
Zhou teaches the binder of the ceramic layer and the binder of the functional layer each independently comprise polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene ([0058]).
Zhou further teaches the inorganic particles comprise lithium lanthanum titanium oxide ([0051]), which is expected to have a working potential (vs Li/Li+) of greater than or equal to about 1 V, as instantly disclosed and claimed.
Zhou teaches a thickness of the ceramic layer is in the range of 0.55 µm to 60 µm (the thickness of each layer “2” is in the range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm, [0042]; and the thickness of the layer “1” is in the range of 0.5 µm to 50 µm, [0041]). The claimed thickness of the ceramic layer overlaps the range of 0.55 µm to 60 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhou teaches a thickness of the functional layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 20 µm ([0044]). The claimed range of about 1 µm to about 20 µm overlaps or lies inside that of 0.5 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein in the layer “2”, the ceramic particles are in an amount of 70 wt% to 99 wt% ([0043]), and therefore the binder is in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% in the layer “2”. As addressed in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of the layer “2” and the substrate “1” is considered as the claimed ceramic layer. The thickness (and accordingly weight) of the substrate can be adjusted ([0041]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed amount of the ceramic particles and the binder in the ceramic layer by, for example, adjusting the thickness (weight) of the substrate or/and the contents of the ceramic particles and the binder in the layer “2” through routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein, in the functional layer, an average particle diameter, D50, of the inorganic particles is in a range of 0.001 µm to 15 µm ([0052]). The claimed range overlaps the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein based on 100 wt% of the functional layer, the inorganic particles are in an amount of 40 wt% to 99 wt% ([0053]), and therefore the binder is in an amount of 1 wt% to 60 wt%. The instantly claimed ranges overlap the above two ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-14, Zhou teaches a negative electrode-separator assembly (See, e.g., “the second coating layer 3 near the negative electrode”, [0046]; [0062], [0090]-[0091], [0100]) for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative electrode-separator assembly comprising:
a negative electrode ([0100]),
a functional layer (“3” in Fig. 2) on the negative electrode ([0100]) and comprising inorganic particles ([0048]) and a binder (“second binder”, [0048]) and
a ceramic layer (“2”+“1” in Fig. 2) comprising ceramic particles (e.g., “silicon oxides”, [0042]) and a binder (“a first binder”, [0042]), and
Zhou teaches the binder of the ceramic layer and the binder of the functional layer each independently comprise polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene ([0058]).
Zhou further teaches the inorganic particles comprise lithium lanthanum titanium oxide ([0051]), which is expected to have a working potential (vs Li/Li+) of greater than or equal to about 1 V, as instantly disclosed and claimed.
Zhou teaches a thickness of the ceramic layer is in the range of 0.55 µm to 60 µm (the thickness of each layer “2” is in the range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm, [0042]; and the thickness of the layer “1” is in the range of 0.5 µm to 50 µm, [0041]). The claimed thickness of the ceramic layer overlaps the range of 0.55 µm to 60 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhou teaches a thickness of the functional layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 20 µm ([0044]). The claimed range of about 1 µm to about 20 µm overlaps or lies inside that of 0.5 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 11, wherein,
the negative electrode comprises a current collector (“Cu foil”, [0098]), and a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector ([0098]),
the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (e.g., “artificial graphite”, [0098]), and
the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based negative electrode active material (e.g., “artificial graphite”, [0098]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 16, wherein,
the negative electrode active material further comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material (“silicon (Si)”, [0076]), and
the silicon-based negative electrode active material comprises silicon ([0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou teaches a rechargeable lithium battery ([0100]), comprising:
the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 11 ([0100]),
a positive electrode ([0100]), and
an electrolyte ([0100]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 18, wherein the ceramic layer (See Fig. 2: “2”+“1”) directly contacts the positive electrode because the other side (“3” side) of the separator is associated with the negative electrode (See “faces” in [0044], “near” in [0045], and “facing” in [0047]) and because the positive electrode, the separator, and the negative electrode are stacked in sequence ([0100]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 6432586 B1, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, but appears silent as to an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that an average size of 0.001 µm to 25 µm of ceramic particles is used in a ceramic composite layer (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used ceramic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.001 µm to 25 µm, as taught by Zhang, in the ceramic layer of Zhou, since the selection of a size of particles is a matter of design choice. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07. As a result, the instantly claimed range overlap the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20090176151 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the functional layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 20 µm ([0044]). The claimed range of about 1 µm to about 20 µm overlaps or lies inside that of 0.5 µm to 20 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhou is silent as to a thickness of the negative electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses that a thickness of a separator comprising a ceramic material is 7-20% of the thickness of a negative electrode active material layer (Abstract) to ensure safety and a high capacity of the battery ([0065]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into Zhou such that the thickness of the separator of Zhou is 7-20% of the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer in order to ensure safety and a high capacity of the battery. Thus, based on the thickness of the separator of Zhou being in the range of 1.05 µm to 80 µm (Fig. 3: “1”+“2”+“3”), the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer of Zhou is calculated to be in the range of about 5.25 µm to about 1143 µm. Kim further teaches a thickness of the negative electrode current collector is 5-10% of the thickness of the negative active material ([0058]), and therefore the total thickness of the negative electrode is in a range of about 5.51 µm to about 1257 µm. The instantly claimed range of the thickness of the negative electrode overlaps or lies inside the above range of about 5.51 µm to about 1257 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein,
in the functional layer, an average particle diameter, D50, of the inorganic particles is in a range of 0.001 µm to 15 µm ([0052]). The claimed range overlaps the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Zhou appears silent as to an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that an average size of 0.001 µm to 25 µm of ceramic particles is used in a ceramic composite layer (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used ceramic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.001 µm to 25 µm, as taught by Zhang, in the ceramic layer of Zhou, since the selection of a size of particles is a matter of design choice. As a result, the instantly claimed range overlap the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims, including newly added claim 19, have been addressed in the new rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights