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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The ratio “15:35 to 65:85” recited in claim 13 appears to have been intended to read “15-35 : 65-85” based on pg. 11, lines 15-20 of the Instant Specification (see also the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC § 112(a) below). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the specification appears to inconsistently describe the composition of the separator coating slurry. Specifically, pg. 16, lines 14-20 of the Instant Specification describes inorganic particles and polymer binder being mixed at a solid content ratio of 96:4.
However, pg. 11, lines 15-10 of the Instant Specification describe inorganic particles and copolymer A and B mixed at a ratio of 15-35 : 65:85. The specification does not adequately explain whether these ratios correspond to different embodiments, different layers, or whether the order of the recited components differs between disclosures. As such, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art which slurry composition constitutes the disclosed invention or how the disclosed compositions are reconciled.” For examination purposes, it is understood that the intended solid content ratio was intended to be 96:4 particles: binder.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0029244) in view of Bai et al. (CN 114094274, as read via machine translation) and Lee et al. (KR 20180112524, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a binder (see e.g. coating layer 30, [0017] and Fig. 2) for coating a secondary battery separator, the binder comprising a mixture of:
copolymer A derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. meth(acrylic) copolymer comprising a (meth)acrylamide structural unit, [0042]), and a (meth)acrylic acid monomer (see e.g. (meth)acrylic acid structural unit, [0043]) and containing a carboxyl functional group (see e.g. (meth)acrylic acid monomer, which has a -COOH carboxyl functional group).
Kim et al. does not disclose a binder comprising an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer.
Additionally, Kim et al. only discloses a binder composed of a single polymer, and does not disclose a binder comprising copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, N-vinylpyrrolidone, and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer and containing an alcohol functional group.
Bai et al., also working in the field of polymer coatings for battery separators, teaches a binder for coating a separator wherein the binder comprises a first polymer and a second polymer, which reads on the claimed copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. N-hydroxymethylacrylamide, which reads on a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, Bai et al.: [0014]) and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer (see e.g. methyl methacrylate, Bai et al.: [0014]). Additionally, Bai et al. teaches a binder wherein the first polymer comprises a carboxyl function group and the second polymer comprises an alcohol functional group (see e.g. Bai et al.: [0057]-[0059], the second polymer comprises a hydroxyl group, which is an alcohol functional group). Bai et al. further teaches that this two-polymer binder improves the adhesion strength of the binder and prevents particle coatings from falling off due to the cross-linking between the carboxyl group and the alcohol functional groups (see e.g. Bai et al.: [0061]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder of Kim et al. such that the binder comprises both copolymer A and a copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer, and wherein copolymer B contains an alcohol functional group instead of a carboxyl group as taught by Bai et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Bai et al. teaches that a second copolymer having an alcohol function group can cross-link with carboxyl group of copolymer A to improve the adhesion strength of the binder and prevent particle coatings from falling off, as taught by Bai et al..
Further regarding the instant claim, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. as set forth above does not teach that either copolymer A or copolymer B contains an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer.
Lee et al., also working in the field of binders for battery separators, teaches an analogous binder that may comprise a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. polymethacrylic acid, which reads on a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, Lee et al.: [0006]) or an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer (see e.g. polyvinylpyrrolidone, which reads on an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer, Lee et al.: [0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder of Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. by substituting an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer for the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer in copolymer A and copolymer B of Kim et al. in view of Bai et al.. This is because Lee et al. teaches that an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer is a functional equivalent to the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer present in these copolymers that performs the same intended function of acting as a binder for a battery separator coating.
As to claim 2, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein copolymer A is a polymer of monomers including 60 to 90 wt% of the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0046]-[0047], stating that the first structural unit may be derived from (meth)acrylamide and may comprise 55 to 95% mol% of the polymer. The rest of the polymer is the (meth)acrylic acid monomer as per [0047]. Because the molecular weight of a (meth)acrylamide monomer is 85.1 g/mol and the weight of a (meth)acrylic acid monomer is 86.09 g/mol, a polymer containing these two monomers that is 55 to 95 mol% (meth)acrylamide is approximately 55 to 95 mol%, which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 60 to 90 wt%) and 1 to 10 wt% of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer, relative to the total weight of the monomers (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0049] states that the second structural unit derived from (meth)acrylic acid may comprise 0 to 40% mol% of the polymer, which is approximately 0 to 40 wt%, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1 to 10 wt%).
The binder taught by Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above comprises N-vinylpyrrolidone, but Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. is silent as to the amount of N-vinylpyrrolidone present, and does not teach 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone.
However, Lee et al. teaches that the N-vinylpyrrolidone monomer is a functional equivalent to the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. Lee et al.: [0006]). Absent any evidence of any new or unexpected benefit derived from the use of 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al.’s polymer by adding 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone to the binder polymer, because Lee et al. teaches that N-vinylpyrrolidone is a functional equivalent to (meth)acrylamide.
As to claim 3, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein copolymer B is a polymer of monomers including 60 to 90 wt% of the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0046]-[0047], stating that the first structural unit may be derived from (meth)acrylamide and may comprise 55 to 95% mol% of the polymer. The rest of the polymer is the (meth)acrylic acid monomer as per [0047]. Because the molecular weight of a (meth)acrylamide monomer is 85.1 g/mol and the weight of a (meth)acrylic acid monomer is 86.09 g/mol, a polymer containing these two monomers that is 55 to 95 mol% (meth)acrylamide is approximately 55 to 95 mol%, which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 60 to 90 wt%) and 1 to 10 wt% of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer, relative to the total weight of the monomers (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0049] states that the second structural unit derived from (meth)acrylic acid may comprise 0 to 40% mol% of the polymer, which is approximately 0 to 40 wt%, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1 to 10 wt%).
The binder taught by Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above comprises N-vinylpyrrolidone, but Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. is silent as to the amount of N-vinylpyrrolidone present, and does not teach 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone.
However, Lee et al. teaches that the N-vinylpyrrolidone monomer is a functional equivalent to the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. Lee et al.: [0006]). Absent any evidence of any new or unexpected benefit derived from the use of 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al.’s polymer by adding 5 to 40 wt% N-vinylpyrrolidone to the binder polymer, because Lee et al. teaches that N-vinylpyrrolidone is a functional equivalent to (meth)acrylamide.
As to claim 4, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein in the mixture, copolymer A and copolymer B are mixed at a weight ratio of 2:8 to 8:2 (see e.g. Bai et al.: [0015], the mass ratio of the first polymer, which reads on copolymer A, and the second polymer, which reads on copolymer B, is (1-100):(1-10), which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 2:8 to 8:2).
As to claim 5, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein the (meth)acrylic acid monomer is acrylic acid or methacrylic acid (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0042], teaching a first structural unit that may be a (meth)acrylic acid derivate, which reads on a (meth)acrylic acid monomer).
As to claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein the (meth)acrylate-based monomer is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2-hydroxy ethyl acrylate and 2-hydroxy ethyl methacrylate (see e.g. b-hydroxyethyl acrylate, which reads on 2-hydroxy ethyl acrylate, Bai et al.: [0014]).
As to claim 7, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the binder of claim 1, wherein heat treatment is performed at 50 to 100°C for 30 minutes to 24 hours (see e.g. thermal curing step at 60°C for 1 hour, Kim et al.: [0145]-[0146]).
As to claim 8, Kim et al. discloses a secondary battery separator, comprising:
a porous substrate (see e.g. separator that includes a porous substrate, [0034]); and
a coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (see e.g. coating layer, [0034],
wherein the coating layer is obtained by heat treatment (see e.g. thermal curing step, [0145]-[0146]) of a copolymer A derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. meth(acrylic) copolymer comprising a (meth)acrylamide structural unit, [0042]), and a (meth)acrylic acid monomer (see e.g. (meth)acrylic acid structural unit, [0043]) and containing a carboxyl functional group (see e.g. (meth)acrylic acid monomer, which has a -COOH carboxyl functional group).
Kim et al. does not disclose a coating layer comprising an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer.
Additionally, Kim et al. only discloses a coating layer composed of a single polymer, and does not disclose a coating layer comprising copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, N-vinylpyrrolidone, and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer and containing an alcohol functional group.
Bai et al., also working in the field of polymer coatings for battery separators, teaches a coating layer for coating a separator wherein the coating layer comprises a first polymer and a second polymer, which reads on the claimed copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. N-hydroxymethylacrylamide, which reads on a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, Bai et al.: [0014]) and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer (see e.g. methyl methacrylate, Bai et al.: [0014]). Additionally, Bai et al. teaches a coating layer wherein the first polymer comprises a carboxyl function group and the second polymer comprises an alcohol functional group (see e.g. Bai et al.: [0057]-[0059], the second polymer comprises a hydroxyl group, which is an alcohol functional group). Bai et al. further teaches that this two-polymer coating layer improves the adhesion strength of the coating layer and prevents particle coatings from falling off due to the cross-linking between the carboxyl group and the alcohol functional groups (see e.g. Bai et al.: [0061]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Kim et al. such that the coating layer comprises both copolymer A and a copolymer B, wherein copolymer B is derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer, and wherein copolymer B contains an alcohol functional group instead of a carboxyl group as taught by Bai et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Bai et al. teaches that a second copolymer having an alcohol function group can cross-link with carboxyl group of copolymer A to improve the adhesion strength of the coating layer and prevent particle coatings from falling off, as taught by Bai et al..
Further regarding the instant claim, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. as set forth above does not teach that either copolymer A or copolymer B contains an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer.
Lee et al., also working in the field of coating layers for battery separators, teaches an analogous coating layer that may comprise a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer (see e.g. polymethacrylic acid, which reads on a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, Lee et al.: [0006]) or an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer (see e.g. polyvinylpyrrolidone, which reads on an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer, Lee et al.: [0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. by substituting an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer for the (meth)acrylamide-based monomer in copolymer A and copolymer B of Kim et al. in view of Bai et al.. This is because Lee et al. teaches that an N-vinylpyrrolidone-based monomer is a functional equivalent to the meth)acrylamide-based monomer present in these copolymers that performs the same intended function of acting as a coating layer for a battery separator coating.
As to claim 9, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 8, wherein the porous substrate is a polymer membrane formed of any one polymer selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, polyesters, polyacetals, polyamides, polyimides, polycarbonates, polyetheretherketones, polyaryletherketones, polyetherimides, polyamideimides, polybenzimidazoles, polyethersulfones, polyphenylene oxides, cyclic olefin copolymers, polyphenylene sulfides, polyethylene naphthalates, glass fibers, Teflon, and polytetrafluoroethylenes, or a copolymer or mixture of at least two thereof (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0035], which teaches a porous substrate that may be made of polyolefin, polyester, polyamide, polyimide, polycarbonate, polyetheretherketone, polyaryletherketone, polyetherimide, polyamideimide, polybenzimidazole, polyether sulfone, a polyphenylene oxide, a cyclic olefin copolymer, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethylene naphthalate, a glass fiber, Teflon, and polytetrafluoroethylene.).
As to claim 10, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 8, wherein the coating layer is formed by applying a slurry for coating a separator on the porous substrate (see e.g. the coating composition for forming a coating layer reads on the claimed slurry, Kim et al.: [0140]).
As to claim 11, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 10, wherein the slurry for coating a separator comprises:
a binder (see e.g. coating layer reads on a binder, Kim et al.: [0034]) comprising a mixture of: copolymer A derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, N- vinylpyrrolidone, and a (meth)acrylic acid monomer and containing a carboxyl functional group; and copolymer B derived from a (meth)acrylamide-based monomer, N- vinylpyrrolidone, and a (meth)acrylate-based monomer and containing an alcohol functional group (see the rejection of claim 8 above, which addresses all of these limitations);
inorganic particles (see e.g. inorganic particles, Kim et al.: [0141]);
and a solvent (see e.g. solvent, Kim et al.: [0141]).
As to claim 12, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 11, wherein the inorganic particles include SiO2, alumina (A12O3), Al(OH)3, AlO(OH), TiO2, BaTiO3, Mg(OH)2, MgO, Ti(OH)4, clay, a glass powder, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0113], teaching inorganic particles that may be SiO2, alumina (A12O3), Al(OH)3, TiO2, BaTiO3, Mg(OH)2, or MgO).
As to claim 13, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 11, wherein the inorganic particles are mixed with the mixture of copolymer A and copolymer B at a ratio (solid content ratio) of 96:4 (see the 112(b) rejection set forth above. See also Kim et al.: [0115], teaching a ratio of a copolymer:inorganic particles of 1:20 to 1:40, which is equal to a solid content ratio of 40:1 to 20:1. As 96:4 equates to 24:1, Kim et al. therefore teaches a range of solid content ratios that overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range).
As to claim 14, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches the secondary battery separator of claim 8, wherein the coating layer has a thickness of 1 to 6 mm (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0120], teaching a coating layer having a thickness of 1 mm to 6.5 mm, which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1 mm to 6 mm).
As to claim 15, Kim et al. in view of Bai et al. and Lee et al. teaches a secondary battery (see e.g. secondary battery, Kim et al.: [0140]) comprising the secondary battery separator of claim 8 (see e.g. separator, Kim et al.: [0140], which reads on the secondary battery separator of claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights