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 Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 5/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 5/24/2023, 8/18/2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 5/24/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The Specification [0005] states:
[0005] A device member such as an electrode or a separator may be stored and transported in a wound state. During such storage and transportation, device members may adhere one another via the functional layer (i.e., blocking). That is, the laminate used as a device member is required to have the capability of inhibiting blocking via the functional layer (improving blocking resistance).
It is unclear as to what “blocking” means. What is it blocking? Also, it is unclear as to how inhibiting blocking is improving blocking resistance. Clarification is required.
Further, the instant Specification on pages 39-40 states:
<Blocking resistance>
A produced separator (including functional layers at both sides, in which the average stacking direction height of the heat-resistant region is 2.0 µm) was cut out into two test specimens of 4 cm in width by 4 cm in length. The two test specimens that were obtained was overlapped with the functional layer-sides inside and then pressed for 2 minutes at a temperature of 40°C under pressure with 5 MPa to obtain a press body. One end of the obtained press body was fixed, another end of the press body was pulled vertically upward at a pulling speed of 50 mm/min to peel off the press body, and the stress during this peeling was measured. The obtained stress was taken to be the blocking strength. The blocking resistance was then evaluated by the following standard. A smaller blocking strength indicates that the functional layer can better inhibit occurrence of blocking, that is, indicates higher blocking resistance of the functional layer. (emphasis added)
It is unclear what the separator is blocking. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 contains a double negative and doesn’t make sense.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2019/164130, using US 2021/0005858 as translation) in view of Lefebvre (WO 2019/089492, using US 2021/0184311 as translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a laminate for an electrochemical device, comprising: a substrate;
and a functional layer arranged on the substrate, wherein
the functional layer contains heat-resistant fine particles; adhesive particles
containing an adhesive polymer [0013]; and a binder [0083],
the adhesive polymer contains a polymer having a glass-transition temperature in a range of not lower than 10°C and not higher than 95°C [0053],
the functional layer includes an adhesion region formed of the adhesive particles
and a heat-resistant region formed of the heat-resistant fine particles and the binder in plan view from a side corresponding to the functional layer, and
the adhesive particles have a volume-average particle diameter that is larger
than an average stacking direction height of the heat-resistant region [0051].
Regarding claim 5, wherein a ratio of the volume-average particle diameter of the adhesive particles relative to the average stacking direction height of the heat-resistant region is not less than 1.1 and not more than 10.0 [0051].
Regarding claim 6, wherein a volume ratio of content of the heat-resistant fine particles relative to content of the adhesive particles in the functional layer is not less than 55/45 and not more than 95/5, Kim discloses a weight ratio of the first and the second organic particles to the inorganic particles may be in a range of about 30:70 to about 50:50. When a weight ratio of the first and the second organic particles to the inorganic particles in the coating layer is within these ranges, the separator may have improved heat resistance, and cell performance may improve due to a decrease in an interfacial resistance according to an increase in adhesion to electrodes [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the inorganic particles with respect to the first organic particles for the benefit of adjusting the adhesivity of the functional layer.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the heat-resistant fine particles are inorganic fine particles [0071].
Regarding claim 9, wherein the inorganic fine particles contain at least one selected from the group consisting of alumina particles, boehmite particles, barium sulfate particles, and magnesium hydroxide particles [0071].
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses that the adhesive polymer contains a polymer having a glass-transition temperature in a range of not lower than 10°C and not higher than 95°C [0053], but does not disclose that the polymer is polyester. Kim discloses that the first organic polymer comprises polystyrene (PS), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), cellulose acetate, acrylate, and azodicarbonamide, but embodiments are not limited thereto [0055]. Lefebvre teaches a separator with coating containing polymer binder particles. The polymer binder particles include fluoropolymers, polyamides, polyether ether ketone, poly(meth)acrylates, polyether ketone ketone, and polyesters [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use a polyester for the adhesive polymer of Kim for the benefit of forming a separator coating layer with binding properties. It is noted that polyester is known to be used in the art as a binder material, and hence the substitution of polyester in the coating layer of Kim to yield predictable results with binding properties would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan. It has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Claims 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2019/164130, using US 2021/0005858 as translation) in view of Lefebvre (WO 2019/089492, using US 2021/0184311 as translation) as claimed in claim 1, further in view of Taguchi (WO 2020/031791, using US 2021/0194092 as translation).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the adhesive particles further contain a fusible additive having a melting point in a range of not lower than 40°C and not higher than 95°C, and regarding claim 3, wherein the fusible additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of an ester wax; a paraffin wax; and a crystalline polyester resin having no glass-transition temperature in a range of not lower than 10°C and not higher than 95°C, Kim discloses third organic particles comprising natural or artificial wax or a low-melting point polymer, such as a olefin, to block the pores of the separator by being melted at a target shutdown temperature to prevent further lithium ion transport [0082]. Taguchi teaches a battery functional layer having excellent shutdown function comprising ester wax. See Abstract. When the wax is an ester wax, an obtained functional layer can cause a separator to display even better shutdown function [0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use ester wax for Kim’s artificial wax for the benefit of having good shutdown properties.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2019/164130, using US 2021/0005858 as translation) in view of Lefebvre (WO 2019/089492, using US 2021/0184311 as translation) as claimed in claim 1, further in view of Sung (WO 2020/130723, using US 2021/0028428 as translation).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the adhesive particles have an average circularity of not less than 0.90 and not more than 0.99, Kim teaches the first organic particles are spherical particles. They are also insoluble in a solvent or a dispersion solution and be maintained in particle form after coating of the slurry to inhibit reduction in air permeability [0054]. Sung discloses a separator having a porous coating having a particle-type binder having a spherical shape. When the particle-type binder polymer has a sphericity of approximately 1, pores can be ensured advantageously [0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the adhesive particles of Kim modified by Lefebvre as circular as possible, as taught by Sung, for the benefit of having pores and hence, having good air permeability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Kim (WO 2019/164130, using US 2021/0005858 as translation). Kim does not disclose nor suggest:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the volume-average particle diameter of the adhesive particles is not less than 1.0 µm and not more than 10.0 µm.
Kim discloses
For example, an average particle diameter of the first organic particles may be in a range of about 0.3 μm to about 0.7 μm. For example, an average particle diameter of the first organic particles may be in a range of about 0.3 μm to about 0.5 μm. For example, an average particle diameter of the first organic particles may be in a range of about 0.4 μm to about 0.5 μm. When an average particle diameter of the first organic particles is smaller than about 0.3 μm, the first organic particles may not protrude from the surrounding surface of the coating layer to enable adhesion to the electrode, or may not provide air permeability, thereby increasing battery resistance. Also, when an average particle diameter of the first organic particles is greater than about 0.7 μm, an adhesion area between the electrode and the separator increases, and a thickness of the separator after coating may be too thick, which may increase resistance of the lithium battery [0052].
Hence, Kim teaches away from the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751