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 of Group 1, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 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].
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).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yoo renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the γ-alumina has a plate-like structure which inherently forms tortuous pore pathways through the separator (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [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 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).
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 Claims 1 and 5, 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 5, 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).
Conclusion
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 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights