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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/22/2026:
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-12 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled.
The previous rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008287888 to Takanohashi (IDS) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0108913 to Zhang et al.
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Takanohashi et al. teach a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising: a support or a porous membrane of polyolefin (a porous polymer substrate); and a coating layer (a polymer layer) on at least one surface of the support (the porous polymer substrate), wherein the coating layer (the polymer layer) comprises a polymer emulsion A (a binder polymer) having a crosslinked structure (Takanohashi et al.: Sections [0007] and [0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
145
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach the binder polymer.
However, Zhang et al. teach a PVA polymer (a binder polymer) with the crosslinked structure below, wherein X could be boron (Zhang et al.: Sections [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Takanohashi et al. with the teaching above from Zhang et al. with the motivation of having a means such the binder would enable longer life and higher electrode loading, primarily for anode materials that undergo high strain on lithiation/de-lithiation, but with benefits that extend to other lower strain anodes and high loading cathodes, it will strengthen the mechanical properties and enhance lithium ion transport of the electrodes.
Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach, but Zhang et al. teach the separator, wherein the binder polymer having the crosslinked structure comprises a crosslinked product of a boron-containing compound with a hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer; wherein a weight ratio of the boron-containing compound to the hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer is 1:1 to 100:1 (30:70 to 70:30) (Zhang et al.: Sections [0036]-[0037]).
With respect to claim 3, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach, but Zhang et al. teach the separator, wherein the boron-containing compound comprises borax (Zhang et al.: Sections [0036]-[0037]).
With respect to claim 4, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach, but Zhang et al. teach the separator, wherein the hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer comprises poly(vinyl alcohol (Zhang et al.: Sections [0036]-[0037]).
With respect to claim 7, both Takanohashi et al. and Zhang et al. do not specifically mention the separator has a rate of decrease in thickness, in order words the separator has a rate of decrease in thickness of 0%.
With respect to claim 8, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach, but Zhang et al. teach an electrochemical device, comprising: a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the separator is the separator for the electrochemical device (Zhang et al.: Section [0002]).
With respect to claim 9, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach a method for manufacturing a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising the steps of: coating a first coating solution comprising a hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer on at least one surface of a porous polymer substrate, followed by drying; and coating a second coating solution comprising a boron-containing compound on a top surface of the porous polymer substrate coated with the hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer, followed by drying to obtain the separator.
However, Takanohashi et al. further teach one or more coating layers on the support layer (the porous polymer substrate), with drying step after each coating layer to obtain a separator (Takanohashi et al.: Sections [0007], [0032] and [0057]-[0058]).
Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach, but Zhang et al. teach the separator, wherein the binder polymer having the crosslinked structure comprises a crosslinked product of a boron-containing compound with a hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer; wherein a weight ratio of the boron-containing compound to the hydroxyl group-containing binder polymer is 1:1 to 100:1 (30:70 to 70:30) (Zhang et al.: Sections [0036]-[0037]).
With respect to claim 10, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach the method for manufacturing the separator for the electrochemical device, wherein an amount of the hydroxyl group-containing binder in the first coating solution ranges from 5 wt % to 20 wt % based on 100 wt % of the first coating solution.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an amount of the hydroxyl group-containing binder in the first coating solution ranges from 5 wt % to 20 wt % based on 100 wt % of the first coating solution, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 11, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach the method for manufacturing the separator for the electrochemical device, wherein an amount of the boron-containing compound in the second coating solution ranges from 5 wt % to 20 wt % based on 100 wt % of the second coating solution.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an amount of the boron-containing compound in the second coating solution ranges from 5 wt % to 20 wt % based on 100 wt % of the second coating solution, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 12, Takanohashi et al. do not specifically teach. Zhang et al. teach the method for manufacturing the separator for the electrochemical device, wherein the second coating solution has a pH 8 (Zhang et al.: Section [0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the intermixing ratio in Zhang is different from the final crosslinked weight ratio, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's interpretation of the claim language applied to the prior art. The intermixing ratio is not necessary the same as the final crosslinked weight ratio, however, theoretically they could be very close to each other. Furthermore, the claimed range in the current application is large as well. Plus, the specification does not show the criticality of having that specific ratio.
Therefore the rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 10/2/2026
