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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 20160137486), hereinafter Jin.
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a separator for an electrochemical device ([Abstract]), comprising:
a porous polymer substrate ([Abstract]);
a porous coating layer including a first polymer binder ([0001]);
inorganic particles and formed on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate ([0001]);
the first polymer binder and the inorganic particles each have different ligands introduced thereto ([0001], [0054-0055]).
Additionally, Jin discloses a plurality of ligand functional group choices that may be introduced into the inorganic particles and the binder and further teaches independently controlling the amount of ligand functional groups present in each component ([0054-0055], [0082-0085], Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide different ligand functional groups on the inorganic particles and the polymer binder, rather than the same ligand on both components, because the inorganic particles and polymer binder are distinct materials having different surface chemistries and functional roles within the porous coating layer. Somebody of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting different ligands for each component would have been a predictable variation to optimize metal-ion capture, improve compatibility with the respective substrate materials, and enhance overall separator performance. The selection of particular ligand functional groups for the inorganic particles and binder would have amounted to no more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Jin further teaches the first polymer binder and the inorganic particles form a coordination bond to a single metal ion ([0001], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Jin further teaches the first polymer binder and the inorganic particles are each independently chemically bonded to one or more ligands selected from the group consisting of:
a first ligand having a single denticity ([0054-0055], [0082-0085], Claim 2)
a second ligand having two or more denticities ([0054-0055], [0082-0085], Claim 2).
Jin specifically teaches ligand functional groups including -NH2, -SH, -OH, -COOH, -COO-, pyridine, pyrazine, and other coordinating functional groups for capturing metal ions. It is well known in the art that amino (-NH2), thiol (-SH), hydroxyl (-OH), and pyridine functional groups generally act as monodentate ligands by coordinating to a metal center through a single donor atom. It is further well known that carboxylate (-COO-) functional groups may coordinate in monodentate or bidentate fashions depending on the coordination environment. Additionally, pyrazine contains multiple donor atoms capable of coordinating to metal ions, and polymer-bound ligand systems are capable of providing two or more coordination sites and therefore exhibit multidentate behavior.
Since Jin teaches a plurality of ligand functional groups encompassing both monodentate and multidentate coordinating species, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a first ligand having a single denticity and a second ligand having two or more denticities from among the disclosed ligand functional groups. The selection of such ligands would have represented the routine selection of known alternative to achieve predictable metal-ion coordination and capture characteristics. Choosing monodentate and multidentate ligands from the finite number of known ligand functional groups taught by Jin would have been an obvious matter of design choice and routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Jin further teaches the first ligand is at least one selected from the group consisting of:
imidazole, pyrazole, triazole, tetrazole, indazole, benzimidazole, azaindole, purine, and derivatives thereof ([0054-0055], [0082-0085], Claim 2).
Since Jin teaches the use of nitrogen containing heterocyclic ligands as metal-ion coordinating groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the disclosed genus encompasses the claimed ligand species. The selection of a particular species from a known genus of functionally equivalent nitrogen-containing heterocyclic ligands would have been an obvious matter of routine choice.
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Jin further teaches the second ligand is at least one selected from the group consisting of:
iminodiacetic acid, ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid, 1,2-cyclohexanediaminetetraacetic acid, and derivatives thereof ([0054-0055], [0082-0085], Claim 2).
Since Jin teaches the use of carboxyl-containing ligand functional groups for metal-ion capture, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the disclosed genus encompasses the claimed ligand species. The selection of particular amino-carboxylate chelating ligand would have been an obvious matter of routine choice.
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Jin further teaches the inorganic particles have the second ligand chemically bonded to a surface thereof ([0054-0055]).
As discussed above in claim 1, Jin discloses a plurality of ligand choices and teaches that ligand selection may be tailored to achieve desired metal-ion capture characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to bond the second ligand to the surface of the inorganic particles because the prior art already teaches functionalizing inorganic particles with ligand functional groups for the purpose of capturing metal ions. Selecting the particular second ligand for attachment to the inorganic particle surface would have constituted the routine selection of a known ligand from among a finite number of predictable options to obtain the expected benefit of metal-ion coordination and sequestration.
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Jin further teaches the content of the ligand in the inorganic particle and binder respectively may be varied in order to effectively capture the metal ion impurity eluted from the cathode in order to improve the lifetime and stability of the device ([0056]).
Jin fails to teach the inorganic particles are included in 40% by weight to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the porous coating layer. The relative amounts of inorganic particles and binder within a porous coating layer are recognized result-effective variable that affect properties such as porosity, mechanical strength, adhesion, ion transport, and thermal stability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the amount of inorganic particles may be varied depending on the desired balance of these properties. The selection of a particular concentration of inorganic particles would have represented nothing more than the optimization of a known result-effective variable to obtain predictable separator characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Jin further teaches the porous coating layer further includes a second polymer binder ([0082]). Jin teaches a porous coating layer including polymer binders and contemplates the use of multiple binders within the coating layer. Where multiple binders are present, the relative amounts of the respective binders constitutes a result-effective variable that may be adjusted to achieve desired coating properties, such as adhesion, flexibility, mechanical strength, porosity, and coating processability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int her art at the time of the invention to select the relative amounts of the first and second polymer binders. Such a selection merely represents the routine optimization of known binder compositions and the relative proportions of known components to achieve predictable coating characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Jin further teaches an electrochemical device (Abstract, Claim 15), comprising:
positive electrode (Claim 15);
negative electrode (Claim 15);
a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Claim 15);
separator is the separator for an electrochemical device of claim 1 (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Jin further teaches the metal ions are generated during charging and discharging of the electrochemical device ([0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Jin teaches the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Jin further teaches the metal ions are transition metal ions derived from the positive electrode ([0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights