SEPARATOR FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SEPARATOR FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
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 without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 7/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 11/17/2023 and 7/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herle et al. (US 2017/0324073 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 10, Herle et al. teach a separator (Figs. 1 and 2, element 130) for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract) comprising: a separator substrate (Fig. 2, element 131 discloses a separator film comprising polyolefin.); a first coating layer on the separator substrate (Paragraph 0030; Fig. 2, element 133 discloses a ceramic coating which can comprise ion conducting ceramic such as (Li,La)TiO3, Li-La-Zr-O, or sulfide based electrolytes.); and a second coating layer on the first coating layer (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 2, element 134 discloses a barrier layer which can comprise lithium aluminate, lithium nitrate, or lithium borate.), wherein the first coating layer comprises a solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0030), and the second coating layer comprises a lithium compound (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first coating layer has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 15 µm (Paragraph 0030 discloses a thickness of 3 microns.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Herle et al. (US 2017/0324073 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the second coating layer has an ion conductivity of about 10-9 S/cm to about 10-5 S/cm or wherein the second coating layer has an electron conductivity of about 10-14 S/cm to about 10-9 S/cm.
However, Herle discloses the barrier layer can comprise lithium compounds as claimed in claim 1. MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle et al. (US 2017/0324073 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0399337 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the second coating layer comprises at least one of lithium fluoride, lithium nitride, lithium phosphate, or lithium phosphorous sulfide, or a combination thereof.
Choi et al. teach a solid electrolyte material (Fig. 1, element 1) which can be used as a separator in an electrochemical cell (Paragraph 0065). It comprises a lithium ion-conducting solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0065; Fig. 2, element 2 discloses LLZO garnet) and a coating material (Fig. 1, element 3). The coating material can comprise lithium aluminate, lithium borate, or lithium fluoride (Paragraph 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the barrier layer of Herle with that of Choi in order to improve ion conductivity and chemical stability.
Regarding claim 8, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the second coating layer has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 50 nm (Paragraph 0031 discloses a thickness of 20-200 nm.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the barrier layer of Herle with that of Choi in order to prevent contact between the air and lithium ion-conducting solid electrolyte of the garnet type.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herle et al. (US 2017/0324073 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ka et al. (WO 2022/015026 A1 using US 2023/0238651 A1 as an English language translation.).
Regarding claim 5, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the first coating layer has a porosity of about 15% to about 60%.
Ka et al. teach a separator (Fig. 1, element 1) comprising a porous polymer substrate (Fig. 1, element 10) and a porous coating layer (Fig. 1, element 20. Further, paragraph 0069 discloses the layer can comprise inorganic particles such as lithium lanthanum oxides.). The porous coating layer can have a porosity of 30-80% (Paragraph 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating layer of Herle with Ka in order to improve adhesion.
Regarding claim 9, Herle et al. teach the separator for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the first coating layer has more uniform pore distribution than the separator substrate.
Ka et al. teach wherein the first coating layer has more uniform pore distribution than the separator substrate (Paragraphs 0070-0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating layer of Herle with Ka in order to improve adhesion.
Conclusion
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 August 3rd, 2026
Prosecution Insights