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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the ratio.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-10 are 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 3 recites the limitation "the other surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the density.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 states that the separator comprises the claimed first and second heat-resistant layers. However, Claim 3 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said first and second heat-resistant layers are in addition to the “a heat-resistant layer” recited in Claim 1, or if said first and second heat-resistant layers are further clarifications of the a heat-resistant layer” recited in Claim 1. Proper clarification is required (it is suggested, for example, that Claim 3 being with “The separator of claim 1, wherein the heat-resistant layer comprises…”).
Claims 4-10 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the inside.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the orientation of the first and second heat-resistant layers in an electrode assembly in a battery. However, Claim 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the instantly claimed battery and electrode assembly is explicitly required (especially given than the instant Claim is drawn to a separator as opposed to a battery or electrode assembly), or the instant limitations are instead describing the aforementioned orientation “if” said battery and electrode assembly are present.
Claims 5-10 are 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 5 recites the limitation "the content.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the density.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (US 2020/0106072, provided by Applicant in the 01/14/26 IDS), and further in view of You et al. (US 2018/0301760).
Regarding Claim 1, Yogo teaches a secondary battery comprising a separator (“separator”) (Abstract). Yogo teaches that the separator comprises a porous substrate (“porous substrate”) and a heat-resistant layer (“heat-resistant layer”) formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate, wherein the heat-resistant layer comprises inorganic particles (“inorganic particles”) therein ([0037]-[0038]). As illustrated in Figure 3, Yogo teaches that the separator comprises a flat first region (30A) (“flat surface”) and a curved second region (30B) (“curved surface”) ([0039]). Yogo teaches that a ratio (B/A) of the air permeability (in terms of s/100 cc, or in other words, “sec/100 mL”) of the curved second region (i.e. B) to the air permeability (in terms of s/100 cc, or in other words, “sec/100 mL”) of the flat first region (i.e. A) is within the range of 0.5 or more and 0.9 or less (“the ratio (F2/F1)… is 1.5 or less”) ([0039]-[0041]).
Yogo does not explicitly teach that the curved second region has a radius of curvature of 10 mm.
However, You teaches a battery comprising an electrode assembly (Abstract). You teaches that the electrode assembly comprises a separator therein ([0013]). You teaches that the electrode assembly (and therefore the separator) is flexible and exhibits a radius of curvature within the range of, preferably, 5-20 mm ([0021]). You teaches that a high radius of curvature provides for a more gentle curve, whereas a low radius of curvature provides for a sharp curve ([0020]). You teaches, however, that too low of a radius of curvature (i.e. too sharp of a curve) results in too much stress such that the electrode assembly structure is broken ([0022]).
Therefore, and through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the radius of curvature of the curved second region of Yogo within the range of 5-20 mm (e.g. to a radius of curvature of “10 mm” which is present within said range), as taught by You, based on a desired level of maximum curvature/flexibility, especially given that You teaches that an increasing radius of curvature provides for a more gentle curvature, whereas a decreasing radius of curvature provides for a sharper curvature.
Regarding Claim 2, Yogo, as modified by You, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Yogo teaches that the porous substrate is preferably formed out of polyethylene and/or polypropylene (“polyethylene,” “polypropylene,” a “combination of two or more thereof”) ([0037]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yogo, as modified by You, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Yogo teaches that the secondary battery (“electrochemical device”) comprises an electrode assembly (3), wherein the separator is a component of said electrode assembly ([0013], [0021]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (US 2020/0106072, provided by Applicant in the 01/14/26 IDS), and further in view of You et al. (US 2018/0301760) and Wang et al. (CN 112490588, using the translation provided by Applicant in the 07/31/23 IDS).
Regarding Claim 3, Yogo, as modified by You, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Yogo teaches that the secondary battery comprises an electrode assembly (3), wherein the separator is a component of said electrode assembly ([0013], [0021]).
Yogo, as modified by You, does not explicitly teach that the heat-resistant layer comprises a first heat-resistant layer on one surface of the porous substrate and a second heat-resistant layer on an opposite surface of the porous substrate, wherein the density of the first heat-resistant layer is smaller than that of the second heat-resistant layer.
However, Wang teaches an electrode assembly comprising a separator (Abstract, [0016]-[0017]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Wang teaches that the separator comprises a porous base layer (2) having a first heat-resistant layer (4) on one surface of the porous substrate and a second heat-resistant layer (1) on an opposite surface of the porous substrate ([0022], [0029]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Wang teaches that the electrode structure is formed such that, upon winding, the second heat-resistant layer may face outward and the first heat-resistant layer may face inward ([0017]). Wang teaches that the first heat-resistant layer comprises a mixture of alumina inorganic particles and a PVDF binder, and is formed so as to have an areal density of 1.6-2.0 g/m2 ([0009], [0013]). Wang teaches that the second heat-resistant layer comprises a mixture of alumina inorganic particles and a PVDF binder, and is formed so as to have an areal density of 1.8-2.2 g/m2 ([0011], [0013]). Wang teaches that said use of PVDF and alumina helps improve thermal abuse, puncture pass rate, and hardness characteristics of a battery ([0013]). Furthermore, Wang teaches that reducing the areal density of the first heat-resistant layer helps reduce thickness characteristics such that battery energy density is improved ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the heat-resistant layer of Yogo, as modified by You, as a first heat-resistant layer on one surface of the porous substrate (which faces inward in the wound electrode assembly, comprises a mixture of alumina inorganic particles and a PVDF binder, and has a reduced areal density of 1.6-2.0 g/m2) and a second heat-resistant layer on an opposite surface of the porous substrate (which faces outward in the wound electrode assembly, comprises a mixture of alumina, and has a higher areal density of 1.8-2.2 g/m2) (“the density of the first heat-resistant layer is smaller than that of the second heat-resistant layer”), as taught by Wang, given not only because such heat-resistant layers would help improve thermal abuse, puncture pass rate, and hardness characteristics of the battery, but also because forming said heat-resistant layers such that the first heat-resistant layer has a lower areal density than the second heat-resistant layer would help reduce thickness characteristics such that the energy density of the battery is improved.
Regarding Claim 4, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the first heat-resistant layer faces inward in the wound electrode assembly (and therefore the “inside” of the battery in which the electrode assembly is wound to a predetermined specification), and the second heat-resistant layer faces outward in the wound electrode assembly (and therefore the “outside” of the battery in which the electrode assembly is wound to a predetermined specification).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (US 2020/0106072, provided by Applicant in the 01/14/26 IDS), and further in view of You et al. (US 2018/0301760) and Wang et al. (CN 112490588, using the translation provided by Applicant in the 07/31/23 IDS) and Honda et al. (US 2015/0263325).
Regarding Claim 5, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the first heat-resistant layer comprises alumina inorganic particles (“first inorganic particles”) and a PVDF binder (“first binder that adheres at least some of the first inorganic particles at predetermined intervals” and “the first binder comprises a water-insoluble polymer”). As previously described (See Claim 3), the first heat-resistant layer has a reduced areal density of 1.6-2.0 g/m2. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Yogo, as modified by You and Wang, does not explicitly teach that the PVDF binder in the first heat-resistant layer comprises PVDF in an amount of 40-90 wt%.
However, Honda teaches a separator for a secondary battery, wherein the separator comprises a porous substrate and a heat resistant porous layer provided on one or both sides of the porous substrate (Abstract). Honda teaches that the heat resistant porous layer comprises a binder and an inorganic filler ([0096], [0099], [0109]). Honda teaches that the binder comprises a mixture of PVDF and polyacrylic acid, wherein PVDF is present in an amount of 20 wt% or more ([0099], [0103], [0105]). Honda teaches that the binder exhibits excellent oxidation resistance and helps provide for enhanced mechanical strength ([0099], [0104]-[0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the PVDF binder in the first heat-resistant layer of Yogo, as modified by You and Wang, such that it is a mixture of PVDF and polyacrylic acid with PVDF present in an amount of 20 wt% or more, as taught by Honda, given that such a binder would help provide excellent oxidation resistance and enhance mechanical strength characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 6, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the second heat-resistant layer comprises alumina inorganic particles (“second inorganic particles”) and a PVDF binder (“second binder that adheres at least some of the second inorganic particles at predetermined intervals”). As previously described (See Claim 3), the first heat-resistant layer has a reduced areal density of 1.8-2.2 g/m2. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Yogo, as modified by You and Wang, does not explicitly teach that the PVDF binder in the second heat-resistant layer comprises a water-soluble polymer in an amount of 70 wt% or more.
However, Honda teaches a separator for a secondary battery, wherein the separator comprises a porous substrate and a heat resistant porous layer provided on one or both sides of the porous substrate (Abstract). Honda teaches that the heat resistant porous layer comprises a binder and an inorganic filler ([0096], [0099], [0109]). Honda teaches that the binder comprises a mixture of PVDF and polyacrylic acid, wherein PVDF is present in an amount of 20 wt% or more (and therefore, the polyacrylic acid is present in an amount of approximately 80 wt% or less) ([0099], [0103], [0105]). Honda teaches that the binder exhibits excellent oxidation resistance and helps provide for enhanced mechanical strength ([0099], [0104]-[0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the PVDF binder in the second heat-resistant layer of Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, such that it is a mixture of PVDF and polyacrylic acid with polyacrylic acid present in an amount of approximately 80 wt% or less, as taught by Honda, given that such a binder would help provide excellent oxidation resistance and enhance mechanical strength characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 7, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the first and second heat-resistant layers comprise alumina inorganic particles (“Al2O3”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the first and second heat-resistant layers comprise alumina inorganic particles (“Al2O3”).
Regarding Claim 9, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 5), the first heat-resistant layer comprises PVDF as a “water-insoluble polymer.”
Regarding Claim 10, Yogo, as modified by You and Wang and Honda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 6), the second heat-resistant layer comprises polyacrylic acid as a “water-soluble polymer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728