LITHIUM ION BATTERY AND SEPARATOR THEREOF
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/18/2024 and 2/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “insulating layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the periphery". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2016-0050734 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a separator (Abstract; paragraph 0023; Figs. 3-4), comprising:
a base film (Figs. 3 and 4, element 201 discloses a porous separation membrane substrate.); and
a coating covering a surface of the base film (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202 disclose an organic/inorganic composite porous coating layer.);
wherein the coating comprises a main body (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202b disclose a base portion.) and an edge portion arranged on the periphery of the main body (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202a disclose a step portion.), the edge portion having a greater thickness than the main body (Paragraph 0037 discloses the thickness of the step portion, d1, is greater than the thickness of the base portion, d3.) , and the edge portion being provided with several patterns arranged at intervals (Figs. 5-7 disclose a binder layer, element 203a, arranged on the step portion, element 202a, comprising a series of patterns.).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the edge portion to a thickness of the main body ranges from 1.2 to 1.6; wherein the thickness of the edge portion ranges from 4 μm to 8 μm, and the thickness of the main body ranges from 3 μm to 5 μm (Paragraphs 0036-0037; Fig. 3 disclose the thickness of the base portion, element 202b, is 2-30 µm which is shown by d3 which is within the claimed range. Paragraph 0037 discloses the thickness of d2, the edge portion 202a, is 5-50% of the thickness, d3, of the base portion which yields 0.1-15 µm. Therefore, the entire thickness of the edge portion d1=d2+d3 or 2.1-45 µm which is also within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a width of the edge portion to a width of the main body ranges from 0.17 to 0.33 (Paragraph 0040 discloses 10-30%.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the edge portion comprises a first edge portion and a second edge portion, the first edge portion and the second edge portion being respectively arranged on two sides of the main body (See annotated Fig. 3 below.),
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kim
and the first edge portion and/or the second edge portion being provided with the several patterns arranged at intervals (Figs. 5-7 disclose a binder layer, element 203a, arranged on the step portion, element 202a, comprising a series of patterns.).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the pattern is at least one of a stripe-shaped pattern, a grid-shaped pattern and a pit-shaped pattern (Fig. 8 discloses a grid-shaped pattern.).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the base film comprises a first surface and a second surface, and the coating covers the first surface and/or the second surface (Fig. 3 discloses the base film, element 201, having the coatings, element 202, on both surfaces of the base film.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses a lithium ion battery (Paragraph 0046), comprising: a positive electrode plate; a negative electrode plate; and the separator of claim 1 arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (Paragraph 0044 discloses an electrode assembly comprising a cathode, an anode, and the aforementioned separator interposed between the cathode and the anode.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al. (KR 2016-0050734 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ping et al. (CN 111564593 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a width of the edge portion ranges from 10 mm to 20 mm, and a width of the main body ranges from 60 mm to 120 mm.
Ping et al. teach a width of the edge portion ranges from 10 mm to 20 mm (Paragraph 0066; Fig. 1, element d1 discloses the width of an adhesive portion, element 200, is 2-15 mm.), and a width of the main body ranges from 60 mm to 120 mm (Paragraph 0066; Fig. 1, element d1 discloses the width of a porous base membrane, element 100, is 50-1200 mm.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Ping in order to bear enough tension, pressure and vibration in the processes of assembly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al. (KR 2016-0050734 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 103545559 A).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. teach the lithium ion battery according to claim 9. However, they do not teach wherein the battery comprises an insulating layer arranged at an edge of the positive electrode plate and/or an edge of the negative electrode plate.
Li et al. teach a battery cell comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. The battery cell is characterized in that the edges of the positive electrode and/or the edges of the negative electrode are coated with a protective layer (Claim 1). Further, the protective layer comprises an insulating material such as polyvinylidene fluoride, ethyl cellulose, styrene-butadiene rubber and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Li in order to reduce internal short circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 212257532 U.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 June 16th, 2026
Prosecution Insights