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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0097537 A, hereinafter Kim, cited by applicant) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0057700 A1, hereinafter Huang, previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Kim teaches a separator (abstract) comprising:
a porous polymer substrate (para. 42) having a plurality of pores;
a first porous coating layer (para. 15 & 31) on a first surface of the porous polymer substrate, wherein the first porous coating layer comprises a plurality of first inorganic particles and first binder particles on a part or all of a surface of the first inorganic particles to connect and fix the first inorganic particles to each other (para. 15); and
a second porous coating layer (para. 15 & 31) on a second surface of the porous polymer substrate, wherein the second porous coating layer comprises a plurality of second inorganic particles and second binder particles on a part or all of a surface of the second inorganic particles to connect and fix the second inorganic particles to each other (para. 15).
Kim fails to specifically teach that an average particle diameter of the second binder particles is 10 times to 30 times larger than an average particle diameter of the first binder particles.
The invention of Huang encompasses electrochemical device. Huang teaches that an average particle diameter of the second binder particles is 6 to 3000 times larger than an average particle diameter of the first binder particles (para. 43 & 44).
In view of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to have an average particle diameter of the second binder particles is 6 or more times larger than an average particle diameter of the first binder particles, since Huang teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to provide good adhesive force and improved the cycle performance of the electrochemical device (para. 25).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the first and second binder particles are each independently a water-based binder polymer (Huang, para. 19).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the first and second binder particles are each independently any one or more selected from the group consisting of a polyacrylic polymer (para. 19).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches wherein the first binder particles have an average particle diameter of 5 μm or smaller, and the second binder particles have an average particle diameter of 0.5 μm or larger (Huang, para. 44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that the claimed range is critical.
The examiner disagrees with this because Table 1 only shows the ratio below the lower limit. It doesn’t show any data regarding the ratio above the upper limit. In addition, Comparative Examples 3 and 4 are within the claimed range. However, dry and wet adhesive strengths are not comparable to Examples 1-3. Therefore, the claimed range cannot be considered critical.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not contemplate improving adhesion and air permeability by controlling the particle diameter ration of the binder particles, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights