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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because this application is a national stage filing of an international application. Restriction in such application is based on lack of unity practice. See MPEP 1850.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR20200034470A, IDS cited 06/20/2023, US-equivalent US20210066692A1 also cited in IDS filed 06/20/2023 was used as translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, Jeong discloses a separator for secondary batteries (title), the separator comprising:
a separator substrate having a porous structure (polyethylene porous film [0123]), wherein the separator substrate comprises a polymer material (i.e., polyethylene)
a coating layer on at least one surface of the separator substrate (porous coating layer applied to both sides [0123]), wherein
the coating layer comprises a crystalline binder (i.e., PVdF binder; see Example 4 in Table 1) and an amorphous binder (i.e., Polyvinyl acetate having 0% crystallinity; see Example 4 in Table 1) miscible with each other {claim 4},
the crystalline binder comprises a first crystalline binder (i.e., PVdF-HFP) and a second crystalline binder (i.e., PVdF-CTFE) {claim 3}
Regarding the limitation “an amount of the amorphous binder is greater than 1 weight% to less than 10 weight% based on a total weight of a solid content of the coating layer”, the instant specification recognizes that the solid content of a coating layer may be an inorganic material, a binder, and a dispersant added [PG Pub 0041].
In this regard, Jeong discloses wherein the coating layer is obtained by mixing the binder polymer solution and inorganic particles in 1:4 weight ratio (e.g., 20g:80g), and 2 parts of cyanoethyl polyvinyl alcohol (e.g., 1.6g) as a dispersing agent based on the total content of the inorganic particles [0122], wherein the binder polymer solution comprises 55wt% amorphous binder in Example 4 (e.g., 11g).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would calculate and recognize that an amount of the amorphous binder is 9.8 weight% (e.g., 11/111.6) based on a total weight of a solid content of the coating layer, which falls within the claimed amount of “greater than 1 weight% to less than 10 weight% based on a total weight of a solid content of the coating layer”.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the first crystalline binder, the second crystalline binder, and the amorphous binder are PVdF-HFP, PVdF-CTFE, and a polyvinyl acetate, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as nonaqueous binders (i.e., insoluble in water).
Regarding claims 7-8, Jeong discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the separator is formed by mixing inorganic particles (i.e., alumina and boehmite), crystalline binder polymers (PVDF-CTFE and PVDF-HFP), an amorphous binder polymer (i.e., polyvinyl acetate having glass transition temperature of 30° C) with acetone to form a slurry, wherein the slurry is applied to both surfaces of a polyethylene porous film under a relative humidity of 40% to a total loading amount of 13.5 g/m2 (see Table 1 and [0122]).
The instant application also discloses wherein the coating layer formed by mixing an inorganic material (i.e., alumina), crystalline binder polymers (PVDF-CTFE and PVDF-HFP), an amorphous binder polymer (i.e., an acrylate-based polymer having glass transition temperature of 26° C) with acetone to form a slurry, wherein the slurry is applied to both surfaces of a polyolefin-based separator substrate under a relative humidity of 40% to a total loading amount of 13.5 g/m2 (Example 1, [PG Pub 0088-0090]).
Since the separator disclosed by Jeong is substantially similar to that of the instant application, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage that if the separator of Jeong were to be subjected to the claimed intended use of thermally treated at 80°C for 3 hour, Jeong’s separator possesses the necessary structure such that its resistance would inherently be lower than 1.00Ω (claim 7) and further envisage that if the separator were to be subjected to the claimed intended use of impregnated with an electrolytic solution and thermally treated, an inorganic material in the coating would inherently be exposed from a surface of the separator (claim 8) (see MPEP 2112.01).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeong (KR20200034470A, IDS cited 06/20/2023, US-equivalent US20210066692A1 also cited in IDS filed 06/20/2023 was used as translation).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the amount of the amorphous binder is 55 wt% based on a total weight of the first crystalline binder, the second crystalline binder, and the amorphous binder (see Example 4 in Table 1), which does not fall within the claim range of “greater than 5 weight% to less than 50 weight% based on a total weight of the first crystalline binder, the second crystalline binder and the amorphous binder”.
However, Jeong discloses that when the content of the amorphous adhesive binder polymer is less than 50 parts by weight, it is possible to provide air permeability similar to or lower than the air permeability and slightly improve adhesion to an electrode and resistance [0085].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the content of the amorphous adhesive binder such that it is less than 50 parts by weight, with a reasonable expectation to provide a separator having similar or lower permeability while also slightly improving adhesion to an electrode and resistance [0085].
Jeong further recognizes that the conventional separator including a fluorinated binder polymer alone as a binder polymer, has significantly high resistance and significantly low adhesion to an electrode [0084], and that the amorphous adhesive binder polymer has high binding force to inorganic materials, high affinity with an electrolyte, and reduces the resistance of a separator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of amorphous adhesive, by way of routine experimentation, to arrive at a desired balance between resistance of the separator and adhesion to the electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses the separator according to claim 1. Jeong does not disclose a weight average molecular weight of the polyvinyl acetate in Example 4.
However, Jeong discloses wherein the amorphous binder may have a weight average molecular weight of 200,000-900,000 [0065], which is wholly within the claimed range of “less than 1,000,000”. Jeong further discloses when the weight average molecular weight is 1,000,000 g/mol or less, the amorphous adhesive binder polymer provides high processability when coating the slurry for forming a porous coating layer and has improved compatibility with the fluorinated binder polymer [0065]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the taught range of weight average molecular weight with a reasonable expectation to improve processability during slurry coating process while also improving compatibility with the fluorinated binder polymer [0065].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/10/2026