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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 2022/0285790), hereinafter Uchida.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 12, Uchida suggests a rechargeable lithium battery ([0029, 0044, 0104-0106, 0190-201]) comprising a positive electrode (e.g., [0198]), a negative electrode (e.g., [0199]), and a separator (e.g., multilayer porous membrane, [0058]) between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (e.g., [0234]); the separator comprises a substrate (e.g., PO microporous membrane) and a coating layer (e.g., porous layer) on at least one surface (e.g., [0058]) or two surfaces of the substrate (e.g., [0063, 0104-0106]); the coating layer includes cube-shaped inorganic particles (see e.g., [0070], which suggests “block-shaped” inorganic particles with an aspect ratio of 1.0, thereby suggesting a cube shape, see also Fig. 1 which shows cubic shapes or near cubic shapes) comprising boehmite, silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), titania (TiO2), clay, BaSO4, MgO, Mg(OH)2 (see e.g., [0069]), having a D50 particle diameter between about 0.15 μm to about 0.4 μm, or the D50 particle diameter is greater than or equal to about 0.15 μm and less than or equal to about 0.25 μm (e.g., D50 is 100 nm to 600 nm, [0073], which overlaps with that claimed), and a D90 particle diameter between about 0.4 μm to about 1.0 μm, or the D90 particle diameter of greater than or equal to about 0.4 μm and less than or equal to about 0.6 μm (e.g., D90 is 300 nm to 1.2 micron, disclosed also is the range of 400 nm to 1.1 micron, and 500 nm to 1,000 nm, [0074]); finally, the coating layer has a thickness of greater than 0 μm and less than about 2.0 μm, or greater than or equal to about 1.0 μm and less than or equal to about 1.5 μm (e.g., 1-1.5 micron, or 0.2-4 micron, see e.g., [0063, 0122-0123], which overlaps with that claimed). See also Examples and Table 1
As detailed above, Uchida makes reference to D90, not D99; however, D90 (which represents the particle diameter of 90% of the particles) is close to D99 (which represents the particle diameter of 99% of the particles); a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; absent evidence of criticality, the claimed values are obvious over Uchida, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Further, Uchida suggests it is advantageous to limit 90% of the particles to have a particle diameter 1.2 micron or less, or more preferably 1.1 micron or less, and even more preferably 1 micron or less, to inhibit deformation at temperatures above the melting point of the PO microporous membrane. Considering larger particles have a negative effect (e.g., deformation), one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that nearly all of the particles (e.g., D99, 99% of the particles) have a particle diameter of 1 micron or less with the expectation of inhibiting deformation at temperatures above the melting point of the PO microporous membrane. Similarly, Uchida suggests setting 90% of the particles to have a particle diameter 0.3 micron or more, or more preferably 0.4 micron or more, and even more preferably 0.5 micron or more, to inhibit moisture adsorption and prevent capacity deterioration with repeated cycling. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate nearly all of the particles (e.g., D99, 99% of the particles) to have a particle diameter of 0.4 micron or more (or 0.5 microns or more) with the expectation of inhibiting moisture adsorption and preventing capacity deterioration with repeated cycling.
Regarding Claim 5, Uchida suggests the porous layer has a density (mass/volume) of 1.50 g/m2·µm and a thickness of 2.0 µm (see e.g., [0100] and examples in Table 1), thereby suggesting a mass/area of 3 g/m2 (i.e., 1.50 g/m2·µm ( 2.0 µm) = 3.0 g/m2): thus, Uchida suggests a coating density of the coating layer is greater than or equal to 1.1 L/L (coating density is understood as weight/area, set forth in instant published [0045]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Uchida suggests the coating layer further includes a binder, including about 50 wt% to about 98 wt% of the inorganic particles with respect to a total weight of the coating layer, and about 2 wt% to about 50 wt% of the binder with respect to a total weight of the coating layer, see e.g., [0077--0078], Examples in Table 1; Example 2 suggests about 4.9 wt% binder and 94.6 wt% inorganic particle (with dispersing agent making up the remaining wt%).
Regarding Claim 11, Uchida suggests after 1 hour at 150 °C, the separator has a heat shrinkage rate in a machine direction of less than or equal to about 10%, and a heat shrinkage rate in a transverse direction of less than about 10%, see e.g., [0151-0152, 0230] and Examples in Table 1; Example 2 shows 2.0 % in both the MD and TD.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (cited above) further in view of Arise, hereinafter Arise.
Regarding Claim 9, Uchida suggests various binders suitable for binding the inorganic particles in the porous layer, e.g., polyolefins, fluorine-containing resins, polyvinyl alcohol based resins, cellulose derivatives, polyacrylic acid based binders, and polymers that are resins with melting points of 180 °C or higher (see e.g., [0078-0086]), but polyacrylamide is not disclosed. However, Arise suggests a separator comprising a porous layer on a substrate, wherein the porous layer includes inorganic particles (e.g., boehmite, alumina, titanium oxide, etc., [0046]) and a resin as a binder ([0048]); resins which are contemplated include polyolefins, fluorine containing resins, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, etc., because they are insoluble in the electrolyte solution of a battery, electrochemically stable, and are expected to bind the inorganic particles, see e.g., [0048-0049]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use polyacrylamide resin as the binder since it is insoluble in the electrolyte solution of a battery, electrochemically stable and is expected to bind the inorganic particles, as suggested by Arise. Further, the art has recognized equivalence between the binders for binding inorganic particles in the coating layer of a separator; thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one of the other in the battery environment, see MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seo (US 20170338461) suggests a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode (e.g., 40), a negative electrode (e.g., 50), and a separator (10, Fig. 1) between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0091-0093]), wherein the separator (10) comprises a substrate (20) and a coating layer (e.g., 30) on at least one surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, coating layer 30 on two surfaces of the substrate 20), wherein the coating layer (30) includes cube-shaped inorganic particles ([0037-0038]) boehmite, silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), titania (TiO2), clay, BaSO4, MgO, Mg(OH)2 (see e.g., [0037]), having a D50 particle diameter of greater than or equal to about 0.15 μm and less than about 0.4 μm, or greater than or equal to about 0.15 μm and less than or equal to about 0.25 μm (e.g., 100 nm to 2,000 nm, [0037-0038], which overlaps with that claimed), and the coating layer (30) has a thickness of greater than 0 μm and less than about 2.0 μm, or greater than or equal to about 1.0 μm and less than or equal to about 1.5 μm (e.g., 1-3 micron, [0080]). Seo suggests the coating layer further includes a binder, wherein the coating layer includes: about 50 wt% to about 98 wt% of the inorganic particles ([0038]), and about 2 wt% to about 50 wt% of the binder, based on a total weight of the coating layer, see e.g., [0036, 0044, 0072]. Seo suggests the heat shrinkage rate in the MD and TD direction is less than about 10% when exposed to 150 °C for 1 hour, see e.g., [0082], hence excellent heat resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights