DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
The foreign priority application No.20211374693.1 filed on November 04, 2022 in the China has been received and it is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a single view used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention should not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” should not appear (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (u) Numbering of views). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “FIG.1” in par.0037 should be corrected to read “The FIGURE”.
The limitation “FIG.1” in par.0039 should be corrected to read “the FIGURE”.
The limitation “mPa.S-1” in par.0014 and par.0064 should be corrected to read “mPa. s” (see page 3 of the attached “Viscosity”).
The specification recites a Gurley value of 75-175 sec/mL (par.0023) and in Table 2 in par.0074 the Gurley value is given in s/100 cc.
Air impermeability/resistance of a separator is measured by Gurley method and it is measured in s/100cc, as shown in par.0268 of Inoue et al. (2022/0149365).
Therefore, it is not clear what is the range for the air impermeability/resistance of the separator measured by Gurley method in the instant application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “10-40mPa.S-1” in claim 3 should read “10-40mPa. s” (see page 3 of the attached “Viscosity”).
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent on the objected claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 7 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 7 recites a Gurley value of 75-175 sec/mL.
However, air impermeability/resistance of a separator is measured by Gurley method and it is measured in sec/100cc, as shown in par.0268 of Inoue et al. (2022/0149365) and in Table 2 in par.0074 of the specification of the instant application.
Therefore, it is not clear what is the range for the air impermeability/resistance of the separator measured by Gurley method in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Cheng et al. teach a separator comprising a pretreated PE base membrane and a coating on both sides of the pretreated PE membrane (Example 2, par.0084-0086). The coating is made from a composite slurry comprising polyvinylidene fluoride, aluminum oxide, and DMAC (dimethylacetamide)(par.0072, par.0084).
The pretreated PE (polyethylene) membrane is the “polymer base film” in claim1.
Aluminum oxide is a ceramic, so the coating comprising aluminum oxide of Chen et al. is the “ceramic layer coated on both sides of the polymer base film” in claim 1.
There is no sodium in the components of the separator coating of Cheng et al., so the limitation “the ceramic layer has a sodium content of less than 1000ppm” is met. The separator coating does not contain sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, as required in claim 1.
The separator in Example 2 has an ionic conductivity of 2.4 mS/cm (Table 1, par.0098), which is within the range in claim 1.
The separator has an interfacial bonding of 21 N/m (Table 1, par.0098). The interfacial bonding is measured for two pieces of separator stacked and subjected to hot pressing (par.0076). It is the examiner’s opinion that the interfacial bonding includes bonding between the coating and the pretreated PE membrane of a separator, and the value is within the ranges in claims 1 and 2.
With regard to claim 8, there is no water in the components of the separator in Example 2 (see par.0084-0086), so the limitation “the separator has a water content of less than 1000 ppm” is met.
With regard to claim 12, Cheng et al. teach a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (par.0064).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
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.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781).
With regard to claim 3, Cheng et al. teach the separator in claim 1 (see paragraph 10 above), and teach that coatings formed from slurries comprising aluminum oxide are formed on both sides of a pretreated PE base membrane (Example 2 in par.0084-0086).
The limitation ”wherein the ceramic layer is formed by coating of a ceramic slurry, wherein the ceramic slurry has a viscosity of 10-40mPa.S-1 and a solid content 25%-35%” is a product-by-product limitation. Even though the claim is directed to a product, the patentability is given by the product itself.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (MPEP 2113. I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS)
The viscosity and the solid content of the slurry used to make the ceramic coated have no effect over the separator, because the separator is subjected to drying and the solvent in the slurry evaporates (par.0086 of Cheng et al. and par.0045 of the instant application).
Therefore, the separator of Cheng et al anticipates the separator in claim 3.
In the alternative, the separator in claim 3 is obvious over the separator of Example 2 of Cheng et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781) in view of Mukai et al. (EP 3 691 002 A1).
With regard to claim 6, Cheng et al. teach the separator in claim 1 (see paragraph 10 above).
Cheng et al. teach that the coating layer made from a composite slurry comprising polyvinylidene fluoride, aluminum oxide, and DMAC has a thickness of 2 mm (par.0086). This value is within the claimed range of 1-5 mm.
Cheng et al. fail to teach the areal density of the coating layer.
Mukai et al. teach a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The separator of the battery may comprise a ceramic layer coated on the separator, wherein the ceramic may be alumina (Al2O3, aluminum oxide), the ceramic layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm or more and a coating mass of 0.1-60 g/m2(par.0116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the coating layer of the separator of Cheng et al. with a coating mass (areal density) of 0.1-60 g/m2.
The range of 0.1-60 g/m2 includes the claimed range.
15. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781) in view of Inoue et al. (2022/0149365).
With regard to claim 7, Cheng et al. teach the separator in claim 1 (see paragraph 10 above), but fail to teach the Gurley value of the separator.
However, it is also known in the art that the air resistance of a separator measured by a Gurley method should be between 50-300 sec/100cc in order to favorable transmit the electrolyte of a lithium secondary battery (see par.0001 and 0268 of Inoue et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the separator of Cheng et al. with a Gurley value of 50-300 sec/100cc in order to favorable transmit the electrolyte between the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the battery.
16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0164060).
With regard to claim 9, Cheng et al. teach the separator in claim 1 (see paragraph 10 above), and further teach a process comprising the steps of:
-preparing a composite slurry comprising polyvinylidene fluoride, aluminum oxide, and DMAC (dimethylacetamide) (par.0084, par.0072);
-preparing a modified polyethylene (PE) base membrane (par.0085) and coating both sides of the modified polyethylene (PE) base membrane with the composite slurry by gravure roller (par.0086);
--drying the obtain the separator (par.0086).
Cheng et al. fail to teach a composite slurry comprising water.
Zhang et al. teach an improved ceramic coated separator for a lithium battery (abstract). The separator may be prepared by obtaining an aqueous slurry comprising alumina (aluminum oxide) particles and a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based polymer, coating the slurry on a surface of a porous membrane, and drying (Examples 1-4 in par.0077-0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use water as the solvent of the composite slurry of Cheng et al., because Zhang et al. clearly teach the use of water for ceramic-containing slurries for a battery separator.
17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2023/0187781) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0164060) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hoshida et al. (US 2002/0034689).
With regard to claim 11, Cheng modified by Zhang teach the method of claim 9 (see paragraph 16 above), but fail to teach that the process of making the separator is in an environment humidity of 1% or below.
Hoshida et al. teach a separator for a battery (abstract), and further teach that a separator with low water content causes less bad influence on the battery performance (par.0022),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform the process of Cheng modified by Zhang in an environment with no humidity in order to obtain the battery with no water content and avoid bad influence on the battery performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A) fail to teach the separator in claim 4.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Cheng et al. and obtain the separator in claim 4 of the instant application.
19. Claim 10 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.
Cheng et al. (CN 111653712 A) fail to teach the method in claim 10.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Cheng et al. and obtain the method in claim 10 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722