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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-7 , 9-17, and 19-20 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is not presented by the Examiner that the species are mutually exclusive, patentably distinct, and constitutes a search burden. This is not found persuasive because Species 1-4 presented in Figs. 1-4 have differing coating layers on the separator substrate and are mutually exclusive. Species A is having the second coating as a polymer with a core-shell structure and Species B is having the second coating as a polymer with a core-shell structure which is mutually exclusive. The instant specification provides details on the embodied examples that have the structures to be patentably distinct from each other, see all Examples [0075]-[0150]. The search burden was identified in the Restriction Requirement as being the species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses, or employing different search queries); the prior art application to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. Note, the arguments are not directed toward the indicated Species as not being mutually exclusive or patentably distinct
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8 and 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/27/2026.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20230015490-A1 relying on the PCT filing date of 11/30/2020) in view of Liu et al. (US-20160164065-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng teaches:
A separator comprising: a separator substrate; and a first coating and a second coating respectively provided on two surfaces of the separator substrate (“the separator comprises a substrate (A) and a coating (B), and the coating (B) is provided on both surfaces of the substrate (A) at the same time,” see [0149]);
wherein the first coating comprises polymer secondary particles (the coating (B) suitably comprises a second organic particle which has a secondary particle morphology, see [0047]),
Cheng is silent toward:
and a melting point of the secondary particles is 130°C to 150°C.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery separator with polymer based layers (see Abstract and Fig. 1), Liu teaches proving polymer particles based thermal sensitive layer to shut down internal current of the battery at a critical temperature to improve safety, see [0027]. Liu further teaches that it is suitable to have the polymer particles of the thermal sensitive layer have a melting point between about 100 °C to about 180 °C which encompasses the claimed range, see [0029].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the second organic particle of Cheng to have a melting point between about 100 °C to about 180 °C to increase safety.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 2, Cheng at least teaches:
wherein the first coating satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(a) a Dv50 of primary particles forming the secondary particles is 50 nm to 1000 nm (optional limitation);
(b) a Dv50 of the secondary particles is 10 µm to 30 µm (the second organic particles have a number-average particle size of 12 μm-25 μm which is within the claimed range, see [0108]);
(c) a sphericity of the secondary particles is 0.7 to 1 (optional limitation);
or (d) a crystallinity of the secondary particles is 38% to 46% (optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng teaches:
wherein a coating weight of the first coating is 0.4 g/m2 to 1.0 g/m2; and a coating weight of the second coating is 0.1 g/m2 to 1 g/m2.
Cheng teaches an embodiment in which the coating (B) have a weight per unit area of 1.5 g/m2-2.5 g/m2, see [0034]. The first and second coating are interpreted to be the first and second organic particles of the coating (B) disposed on both sides of the substrate, see Fig. 4-2. The combination of the mass percent of the first and second organic particles ranges from 11-40%, see [0046] and [0049]. This indicates the organic particles weight per unit area of the coating is between 0.17-1 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the coating (B) have a weight per unit area of 1.5 g/m2-2.5 g/m2 because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the organic particles weight per unit area of the coating because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the secondary particles comprise at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, ethylene, propylene, vinyl chloride, chloropropylene, acrylic acid, acrylate, styrene, butadiene, or acrylonitrile.
However, Cheng teaches the second organic particles which have a secondary particle morphology can suitably comprise polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene-acrylic acid copolymer, or a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene-acrylate copolymer, see [0030]-[0031].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the above listed polymers for the second organic particles because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the second coating comprises a high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure, the core of the high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure being selected from at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, styrene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or maleic acid; and the shell of the high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure is selected from at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methyl styrene, acrylonitrile, or methacrylonitrile.
However, Cheng teaches the first organic particles are suitably a comprise a core structure and a shell structure, see [0095]. Cheng further teaches the core structure and the shell structure comprise the same copolymer of with adjusted differences in the monomeric units, see [0095]. Cheng indicates methacrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene copolymer and styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer are suitable compositions for the core and shell structures, see [0093].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the first organic particles have a core shell structure comprising the listed copolymers above because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Cheng teaches:
An electrochemical apparatus comprising (a secondary battery comprising the separator, see Abstract):
a separator ; the separator comprising a separator substrate, and a first coating and a second coating respectively provided on two surfaces of the separator substrate (“the separator comprises a substrate (A) and a coating (B), and the coating (B) is provided on both surfaces of the substrate (A) at the same time,” see [0149]);
Cheng is silent toward:
wherein the first coating comprises polymer secondary particles, and a melting point of the secondary particles is 130°C to 150°C.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery separator with polymer based layers (see Abstract and Fig. 1), Liu teaches proving polymer particles based thermal sensitive layer to shut down internal current of the battery at a critical temperature to improve safety, see [0027]. Liu further teaches that it is suitable to have the polymer particles of the thermal sensitive layer have a melting point between about 100 °C to about 180 °C which encompasses the claimed range, see [0029].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the second organic particle of Cheng to have a melting point between about 100 °C to about 180 °C to increase safety.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 12, Cheng at least teaches:
wherein the first coating satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(a) a Dv50 of primary particles forming the secondary particles is 50 nm to 1000 nm (optional limitation);
(b) a Dv50 of the secondary particles is 10 µm to 30 µm (the second organic particles have a number-average particle size of 12 μm-25 μm which is within the claimed range, see [0108]);
(c) a sphericity of the secondary particles is 0.7 to 1 (optional limitation);
or (d) a crystallinity of the secondary particles is 38% to 46% (optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 13, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein a coating weight of the first coating is 0.4 g/m2 to 1.0 g/m2; and a coating weight of the second coating is 0.1 g/m2 to 1 g/m2.
Cheng teaches an embodiment in which the coating (B) have a weight per unit area of 1.5 g/m2-2.5 g/m2, see [0034]. The first and second coating are interpreted to be the first and second organic particles of the coating (B) disposed on both sides of the substrate, see Fig. 4-2. The combination of the mass percent of the first and second organic particles ranges from 11-40%, see [0046] and [0049]. This indicates the organic particles weight per unit area of the coating is between 0.17-1 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the coating (B) have a weight per unit area of 1.5 g/m2-2.5 g/m2 because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the organic particles weight per unit area of the coating because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the secondary particles comprise at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, ethylene, propylene, vinyl chloride, chloropropylene, acrylic acid, acrylate, styrene, butadiene, or acrylonitrile.
However, Cheng teaches the second organic particles which have a secondary particle morphology can suitably comprise polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene-acrylic acid copolymer, or a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene-acrylate copolymer, see [0030]-[0031].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the above listed polymers for the second organic particles because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 17, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the second coating comprises a high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure, the core of the high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure being selected from at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, styrene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or maleic acid; and the shell of the high molecular polymer with a core-shell structure is selected from at least one of homopolymers or copolymers of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methyl styrene, acrylonitrile, or methacrylonitrile.
However, Cheng teaches the first organic particles are suitably a comprise a core structure and a shell structure, see [0095]. Cheng further teaches the core structure and the shell structure comprise the same copolymer of with adjusted differences in the monomeric units, see [0095]. Cheng indicates methacrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene copolymer and styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer are suitable compositions for the core and shell structures, see [0093].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the first organic particles have a core shell structure comprising the listed copolymers above because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Cheng teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1 (The secondary battery is used as a power source of the device, see [0207]).
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20230015490-A1 relying on the PCT filing date of 11/30/2020) in view of Liu et al. (US-20160164065-A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US-20190198840-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng is does not teach:
wherein a thickness of the first coating is 5 µm to 20 µm; and a thickness of the second coating is 0.2 µm to 4 µm.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches disposing a composite layer on a substrate that includes a porous inorganic layer and an organic particle coating layer sequentially disposed on the surface of a porous substrate, see Abstract. Huang further teaches disposing the composite layer 2 which includes the porous inorganic layer 21 and the organic particle coating layer 22 on one surface of the porous substrate 1 and an organic particle coating layer 22 on the other surface of the porous substrate 1, see [0024] and Fig. 4. The separators of Huang invention by having inorganic and organic lays aids in imparting thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode, see [0005].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the separator of to have a composite layer with inorganic and organic layers on one side of the substrate of Cheng and a layer with the organic particles on the other side to imparts thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches the thickness of the porous inorganic layer is 20 nm to 2000 nm (i.e. 0.02-2 µm) which balances having a thick enough inorganic layer improve thermal shrinkage properties and thin enough to retain battery performance and energy density, see [0035]. Huang further teaches the organic particle coating layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 6 μm which balances a thick enough organic particle coating layer to provide suitable adhesion characteristics and thin enough to retain the energy density of the battery, see [0037].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thicknesses of the organic and inorganic layers taught by Huang for the layer thicknesses of modified Cheng to account for balancing improved thermal shrinkage and adhesin with the energy density of the battery.
Modified Cheng in view of Huang, as rendered obvious above, results in a first layer on one side of the substrate with a thickness of 1.2 μm-8 μm and second coating with a thickness of 1 μm-6 μm which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng does not teach:
wherein an inorganic coating is further provided between the first coating and the separator substrate and/or between the second coating and the separator substrate;
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches disposing a composite layer on a substrate that includes a porous inorganic layer and an organic particle coating layer sequentially disposed on the surface of a porous substrate, see Abstract. Huang further teaches disposing the composite layer 2 which includes the porous inorganic layer 21 and the organic particle coating layer 22 on one surface of the porous substrate 1 and an organic particle coating layer 22 on the other surface of the porous substrate 1, see [0024] and Fig. 4. The separators of Huang invention by having inorganic and organic lays aids in imparting thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode, see [0005].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the separator of to have a composite layer with inorganic and organic layers on one side of the substrate of Cheng and a layer with the organic particles on the other side to imparts thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode.
a thickness of the inorganic coating is 0.5 µm to 6 µm.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches the thickness of the porous inorganic layer is 20 nm to 2000 nm (i.e. 0.02-2 µm) which balances having a thick enough inorganic layer improve thermal shrinkage properties and thin enough to retain battery performance and energy density, see [0035].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thicknesses inorganic layers which overlaps the claimed range taught by Huang for the layer thicknesses of modified Cheng to account for balancing improved thermal shrinkage and adhesin with the energy density of the battery.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 10, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the inorganic coating comprises at least one of boehmite, magnesium hydroxide, alumina, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, zirconium dioxide, tin dioxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, barium sulfate, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, or silicon nitride.
However, Cheng teaches the coating can suitably include the inorganic particles of boehmite (γ-A100H), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), barium sulfate (BaSO4), magnesium oxide (MgO), magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), tin dioxide (SnO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), , see [0032].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the inorganic particles listed above in the coating layer because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, Cheng is does not teach:
wherein a thickness of the first coating is 5 µm to 20 µm; and a thickness of the second coating is 0.2 µm to 4 µm.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches disposing a composite layer on a substrate that includes a porous inorganic layer and an organic particle coating layer sequentially disposed on the surface of a porous substrate, see Abstract. Huang further teaches disposing the composite layer 2 which includes the porous inorganic layer 21 and the organic particle coating layer 22 on one surface of the porous substrate 1 and an organic particle coating layer 22 on the other surface of the porous substrate 1, see [0024] and Fig. 4. The separators of Huang invention by having inorganic and organic lays aids in imparting thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode, see [0005].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the separator of to have a composite layer with inorganic and organic layers on one side of the substrate of Cheng and a layer with the organic particles on the other side to imparts thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches the thickness of the porous inorganic layer is 20 nm to 2000 nm (i.e. 0.02-2 µm) which balances having a thick enough inorganic layer improve thermal shrinkage properties and thin enough to retain battery performance and energy density, see [0035]. Huang further teaches the organic particle coating layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 6 μm which balances a thick enough organic particle coating layer to provide suitable adhesion characteristics and thin enough to retain the energy density of the battery, see [0037].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thicknesses of the organic and inorganic layers taught by Huang for the layer thicknesses of modified Cheng to account for balancing improved thermal shrinkage and adhesin with the energy density of the battery.
Modified Cheng in view of Huang, as rendered obvious above, results in a first layer on one side of the substrate with a thickness of 1.2 μm-8 μm and second coating with a thickness of 1 μm-6 μm which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 19, Cheng does not teach:
wherein an inorganic coating is further provided between the first coating and the separator substrate and/or between the second coating and the separator substrate;
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches disposing a composite layer on a substrate that includes a porous inorganic layer and an organic particle coating layer sequentially disposed on the surface of a porous substrate, see Abstract. Huang further teaches disposing the composite layer 2 which includes the porous inorganic layer 21 and the organic particle coating layer 22 on one surface of the porous substrate 1 and an organic particle coating layer 22 on the other surface of the porous substrate 1, see [0024] and Fig. 4. The separators of Huang invention by having inorganic and organic lays aids in imparting thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode, see [0005].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the separator of to have a composite layer with inorganic and organic layers on one side of the substrate of Cheng and a layer with the organic particles on the other side to imparts thermal stability and also stabilizes the interface between the separator and electrode.
a thickness of the inorganic coating is 0.5 µm to 6 µm.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator for a electrochemical device (see Abstract), Huang teaches the thickness of the porous inorganic layer is 20 nm to 2000 nm (i.e. 0.02-2 µm) which balances having a thick enough inorganic layer improve thermal shrinkage properties and thin enough to retain battery performance and energy density, see [0035].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thicknesses inorganic layers which overlaps the claimed range taught by Huang for the layer thicknesses of modified Cheng to account for balancing improved thermal shrinkage and adhesin with the energy density of the battery.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20230015490-A1 relying on the PCT filing date of 11/30/2020) in view of Liu et al. (US-20160164065-A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Choi et al. (US-20200388808-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the first coating further comprises an auxiliary binder,
However, Cheng teaches the coating can suitably include a heat resistant binder that can impart improved performance, see [0121].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included a binder into the coating layers because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Cheng does not teach:
and a mass of the auxiliary binder accounts for 5wt% to 15wt% of a total mass of the first coating.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator with coating layer(s) which includes organic, inorganic particles, and a heat resistant binder (see Abstract), Choi teaches in all examples using 10 wt% of the heat resistant binder in the coating layer which imparts suitable amount of heat resistance to the separator, see [0176]-[0177], [0184]-[0185], and [0113].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the heat resistance binder of Cheng be provided in 10 wt% as taught by Choi to impart a suitable amount of heat resistance to the separator.
Regarding Claim 15, Cheng does not necessarily teach:
wherein the first coating further comprises an auxiliary binder,
However, Cheng teaches the coating can suitably include a heat resistant binder that can impart improved performance, see [0121].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included a binder into the coating layers because Cheng teaches this is a suitable embodiment for the separator of the disclosed invention.
Cheng does not teach:
and a mass of the auxiliary binder accounts for 5wt% to 15wt% of a total mass of the first coating.
To solve the same problem of designing a separator with coating layer(s) which includes organic, inorganic particles, and a heat resistant binder (see Abstract), Choi teaches in all examples using 10 wt% of the heat resistant binder in the coating layer which imparts suitable amount of heat resistance to the separator, see [0176]-[0177], [0184]-[0185], and [0113].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the heat resistance binder of Cheng be provided in 10 wt% as taught by Choi to impart a suitable amount of heat resistance to the separator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights