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 Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 appears to contain a typographical error since Claim 6 is indicated as depending from cancelled Claim 5. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that Claim 6 should depend from Claim 1. Claims 7 and 8 depend from Claim 6, and therefore also depend from cancelled Claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 depends from cancelled Claim 5, and therefore Claim 6 and dependent Claims 7-8 are rejected for failing to incorporate the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US-20190148692-A1; cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo discloses an electrode-supported separator (200, Fig. 2; [0027]). The preamble recitation of a “lithium-metal battery” does not further limit the structure of the electrode-supported separator, and therefore is not given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02). Yoo discloses that the electrode-supported separator comprises:
an electrically conductive substrate (corresponds to the combination of electrode active material and current collector; [0025-0027]); and
a separator coated (first separator layer 210; [0028]) on the substrate [0027, 0035].
Yoo discloses that the separator (first separator layer 210) comprises a ceramic material in a platelet (i.e. plate-shaped) structure [0028], and Yoo discloses gamma alumina (i.e. γ-alumina) as an example of a ceramic material [0034, 0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the first separator to include plate-shaped γ-alumina with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrode-supported separator.
Yoo discloses that a platelet (i.e. plate-like) structure increases tortuosity through the separator structure [0028]. Since Yoo renders obvious γ-alumina with a platelet structure, Yoo is understood to inherently render obvious γ-alumina particles which “define inter-particle tortuous pores”, as suggested by Yoo [0028], and as evidenced by the instant application [instant specification: 0060].
As set forth above, Yoo renders obvious that the γ-alumina has a plate-like structure which inherently forms tortuous pore pathways through the separator [0028]. Specifically, Yoo discloses that platelet (i.e. plate-like) structure increases the tortuosity through the separator structure, thereby affecting air permeability [0028, 0038]. Yoo also discloses that the more tortuous the path through the separator structure, the more cycling rate capability may be reduced [0028, 0038]. Yoo also discloses that the thickness of the separator layer may be adjusted [0035].
Although Yoo does not teach the length of the pathway of the pores in relation to the thickness of the separator, and therefore does not specifically teach that “a ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator is greater than 3”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the pathway length of the pores in relation to the thickness of the separator, including selecting the ratio to be greater than 3, with a reasonable expectation that such a ratio would result in a successful balance between minimizing the tortuosity of the pathway in order to ensure sufficient cycling rate capability, while maintaining the plate-like structure of the γ-alumina particles which inherently increases tortuosity (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Yoo discloses that a thickness of the separator is less than 30 µm [0035]. A thickness of less than 30 µm overlaps the claimed range of 20 µm to 60 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful electrode-supported separator (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US-20190148692-A1; cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Goetzen et al. (US-20150030933-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Yoo teaches that the separator layer may have a thickness of less than 20 µm [0009]. Yoo does not teach the average thickness of the γ-alumina particles.
Goetzen teaches a similar separator comprising alumina such as γ-alumina [0012, 0014, 0022, 0026, 0052, 0068, 0070]. Goetzen teaches that the aluminum oxide or hydroxide particles can be platelet-shaped (correspond to plate-like), and may have a crystallite size of 5 to 200 nm [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the γ-alumina particle of Yoo to have a size of 5 to 200 nm with a reasonable expectation that such a size of γ-alumina particles would result in a successful separator. The crystal size reads on the claimed particle “thickness”, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification. The particle size (i.e. thickness) rendered obvious by the prior art (i.e. 5 to 200 nm) overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 µm to 1 µm (i.e. 200 nm to 1000 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a particle thickness would result in successful γ-alumina particles for use in an electrode-supported separator (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Yoo discloses that air permeability is related to porosity and pore tortuosity across a thickness of the separator [0038], and that both pore size and pore structure relate to the ease with which ions pass through the separator structure [0028]. Yoo does not teach the radius of the inter-particle pores.
Goetzen teaches a similar separator comprising alumina such as γ-alumina [0012, 0014, 0022, 0026, 0052, 0068, 0070]. Goetzen teaches that the pore size (i.e. pore diameter) of the separator is preferably between 10 nm to 300 nm [0023-0024]. A pore diameter of 10 nm to 300 nm corresponds to a pore radius of 5 nm to 150 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the separator of Yoo to have a pore radius of 5 nm to 150 nm (i.e. a pore size of 10 nm to 300 nm) with a reasonable expectation that such a pore radius would result in a successful separator with sufficient porosity to successfully operate in a secondary battery. The pore radius rendered obvious by the prior art corresponds to the claimed “radius of the inter-particle pores”. Accordingly, the range of the pore radius rendered obvious by the prior art (i.e. 5 nm to 150 nm) overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm to 700 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a pore radius would result in a successful separator for use in a lithium metal battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the substrate comprises a current collector and an active material (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Yoo discloses that the substrate can be either an anode or a cathode [0026], and as the active material, Yoo discloses that any known active material, including materials comprising nickel manganese, and/or cobalt, can be used [0026]. Yoo does not explicitly teach that the substrate comprises nickel, manganese, and cobalt oxide.
Goetzen teaches a similar separator comprising alumina such as γ-alumina [0012, 0014, 0022, 0026]. Goetzen teaches that the separator can be applied directly to an electrode [0022, 0068, 0070], and that the electrode can be a positive electrode [0070] comprising LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2 (i.e. NMC) [0080, 0088, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the substrate to be a cathode, and to have selected the active material of Yoo to be NMC with a reasonable expectation that such an active material would result in a successful electrode-supported separator. Accordingly, modified Yoo renders obvious that the substrate (i.e. the combination of the current collector and the active material) comprises nickel, manganese, and cobalt oxide (i.e. NMC).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US-20190148692-A1; cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023) in view of Goetzen et al. (US-20150030933-A1) as applied to Claim 3, above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US-20210320378-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the γ-alumina particles have a plate-like structure (see rejection of Claim 1 above; [0028]). Yoo does not teach the aspect ratio of the γ-alumina particles.
Lee teaches a separator for a lithium battery comprising a separator with a coating comprising inorganic particles [0013-0014, 0082-0083]. Lee teaches that plate-shaped inorganic particles (such as alumina) may have an aspect ratio of about 1:5 to 1:100, and that such an aspect ratio results in a separator wherein contraction may be suppressed, porosity may be secured, and penetration characteristics of a lithium battery may be improved [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the plate-shaped γ-alumina particles of modified Yoo to have an aspect ratio of 5 to 100 with a reasonable expectation that such an aspect ratio would result in a successful electrode-supported separator with suppressed contraction and sufficient porosity and penetration characteristics for use in a lithium metal battery. The range rendered obvious by the prior art (i.e. 5 to 100) overlaps the claimed range (i.e. 2 to 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such an aspect ratio would result in a successful electrode-supported separator (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US-20190148692-A1; cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Yoo ‘923 (US-20220336923-A1).
Regarding Claims 6-8, Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Yoo discloses that air permeability is related to porosity and pore tortuosity across a thickness of the separator [0038], and that both pore size and pore structure relate to the ease with which ions pass through the separator structure [0028]. Yoo does not teach the radius of the inter-particle pores.
Yoo ‘923 teaches a similar separator [0030, 0041-0042, 0044, 0046-0048]. Yoo ‘923 teaches that the separator layer comprising γ-alumina particles has a mean pore size of less than or about 0.5 µm (i.e. 500 nm) [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected separator of Yoo to have a mean pore size of about 0.5 µm (i.e. 500 nm) with a reasonable expectation that such a pore size would result in a successful separator. A pore size of about 500 nm is understood to refer to a pore diameter of about 500 nm, and a pore radius of about 250 nm. A pore radius of 250 nm falls within the range of 100 nm to 700 nm as required by Claim 6, and falls within the range of 200 nm to 600 nm as required by Claim 7 (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Although modified Yoo does not specifically teach that the radius of the inter-particle pores is in a range of 300 nm to 500 nm as required by Claim 8, the radius of about 250 nm rendered obvious by modified Yoo is understood to encompass values slightly above 250 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the inter-particles pores of modified Yoo to have a radius slightly larger than 250nm, including 300 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful separator (MPEP 2144.05, I). Additionally, the value of about 250 nm rendered obvious by the prior art is so close to the lower limit of the claimed range (i.e. 300 nm) that, absent showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected substantially the same characteristics in a separator with an inter-particle pore radius of about 250 nm and a separator with an inter-particle pore radius of 300 nm, thus rendering the claimed range obvious (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US-20190148692-A1; cited in IDS filed 11/20/2023) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Murata (US-20100203396-A1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the y-alumina particles have a platelet structure (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0028]). Modified Yoo does not explicitly teach that the separator comprises “rectangular cuboid plate-shaped y-alumina particles”.
Murata teaches that there is no particular limitation to the shape of alumina particles used in a separator coating [0015, 0058, 0071-0072]. The alumina particles can be γ-alumina particles [0071]. Possible shapes for the alumina particles include spherical, oval, rectangular and amorphous [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected rectangular alumina particles as the alumina particles of modified Yoo with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrode-supported separator, since Murata teaches that there is no criticality to the shape of γ-alumina particles in coating layers on separators (MPEP 2144.07). Rectangular alumina particles are interpreted as reading on “rectangular cuboid plate-shaped y-alumina particles”, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Yoo does not describe or suggest that “a ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator is greater than 3” as recited by amended Claim 1 (Remarks, Pg. 5 of 10). Applicant has argued that the rejection of this limitation (previously found in Claim 5) failed to establish any of the preconditions required to establish an obviousness conclusion based on routine experimentation (Remarks, Pgs. 5-6 of 10). Applicant has submitted that Yoo does not disclose a value of any kind for the claimed “ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator” and has argued that Yoo does not provide any disclosure that could be used to derive such a value (Remarks, Pgs. 7-8 of 10). Applicant has further argued that the rejections of record fail to provide reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to formulate the claimed ratio when Yoo has not described the ratio or the general conditions of the claimed ratio (Remarks, Pg. 9 of 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the previous rejection of Claim 5 (now incorporated into the rejection of Claim 1) establishes that (1) one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrive at the claimed invention in light of the prior art, and (2) would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
In regards to (1), the rejections note that Yoo discloses that a platelet (i.e. plate-like) structure of a ceramic material increases the tortuosity through the separator structure, thereby affecting air permeability, and resulting in reduced cycling rate capability [0028, 0038]. The Examiner notes that this establishes tortuosity as a result-effective variable. Tortuosity is well-understood in the art as reading on the claimed ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator, as evidenced by Gerald et al. (US-8119273-B1) (Col. 7, lines 31-32: “The tortuosity of a membrane is the distance the ions travel in traversing the pore structure (ratioed against) divided by the geometric width of the membrane.”). In regards to (2), the rejection of record lays out a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator (i.e. tortuosity) in order to achieve a successful balance between minimizing the tortuosity of the pathway in order to ensure sufficient cycling rate capability, while maintaining the plate-like structure of the γ-alumina particles which inherently increases tortuosity (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, as laid out above, the Examiner maintains that Yoo renders obvious the preconditions required to establish an obviousness conclusion under MPEP 2144.05, II.
In regards to the arguments that Yoo does not disclose a value of any kind for the claimed ratio or any disclosure that could be used to derive such a value (Remarks Pg. 7 of 10), the Examiner again notes that Yoo discloses tortuosity of the separator as a variable affecting air permeability and cycle rate capability [0028, 0038]. As well-known in the art and further evidenced by Gerald (Col. 7, lines 31-32), the tortuosity of a separator refers to the pore path length divided by the thickness. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the disclosure of Yoo provides sufficient motivation to renders obvious the claimed ratio of actual pathway length of the pores to a thickness of the separator. Additionally, as noted in the rejections of record, Yoo provides motivation to optimize tortuosity in order to achieve a balance between minimizing the tortuosity of the pathway in order to ensure sufficient cycling rate capability, while maintaining the plate-like structure of the γ-alumina particles which inherently increases tortuosity [0028, 0032].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/14/2026
Prosecution Insights