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 II, claims 4-8 and 15-16, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Drawings
Specification
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a ratio of an area of the adhesive coating layer to an area of the intervals is 1:1 to 5:1, and the intervals each refer to a gap between two adjacent adhesive coating layers”.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 which recites “wherein the adhesive coating layer is distributed on the ceramic layer at intervals”.
Claim 6 sets forth that the adhesive coating layer is distributed at intervals. Therefore, from reading the claim, one would assume “intervals” refer to the distribution of the adhesive coating layer and are distinct sections of the adhesive coating layer.
Claim 7 states “the intervals each refer to a gap between two adjacent adhesive coating layers”. It is unclear how “the intervals” can be the gap between two adjacent adhesive coating layers, when claim 6 appears to be written such that it states the intervals are distinct sections of the adhesive coating layer.
Further, it is unclear if the “an area of the adhesive coating layer” is an area of one distinct section/interval of the adhesive coating layer, or an area of all of the district sections/intervals of the adhesive coating layer as a whole. Even further, it is unclear if the “area of the intervals” is the area of a single gap between two adjacent adhesive coating layers, or an area of all of the gaps between all adjacent adhesive coating layers as a whole.
In order to advance prosecution, the examiner has applied prior art to claim 7 to the best of their ability in light of the clarity issues above.
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 4, 8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR20200107406A, using as an English equivalent) in view of Yang et al (US 20220251432 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses a coated separator, comprising a membrane (porous substrate 110 in Fig. 1), a ceramic layer (first coating layer 120 in Fig. 1), and an adhesive coating layer (second coating layer 130 in Fig. 1), wherein the ceramic layer is coated on one or two sides of the membrane and the adhesive coating layer is coated on the ceramic layer (see Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P20-21, 26), and
the adhesive coating layer is formed by coating a coating slurry, wherein the coating slurry comprises: a solvent (see entire disclosure and especially P65, 68), an adhesive polymer resin, wherein the adhesive polymer resin comprises one or a combination of at least two of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based adhesive polymer resin, a polyimide (PI), a polyetherimide (PEI), and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (water-soluble polymer binder which can be a vinylidene fluoride-based binder which can include a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVdF-HFP) copolymer; see entire disclosure and especially P42, 48, 58), and a photoinitiator (see entire disclosure and especially P65-66).
However, Cho does not disclose wherein a weight proportion of the photoinitiator in the coating slurry is 0.08 wt% to 1.0 wt%.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a curable pressure-sensitive adhesive composition includes a photoinitiator in 0.02-3 parts by weight (P77). Yang teaches, generally speaking, the curing speed of the curable pressure-sensitive adhesive composition increases with the increase of the content of the photoinitiator (P77). Yang teaches when the content of the photoinitiator is overly low, the required irradiation energy of UV during curing is high and the curing speed is overly low (P77). Yang teaches, on the contrary, when the content of the photoinitiator is overly high, the required irradiation energy of UV during curing is low and the curing speed is overly high, and the curable pressure-sensitive adhesive composition can be cured even under sunlight or fluorescent lamp light (containing a small amount of UV light), which may affect the storage stability of the curable pressure-sensitive adhesive composition at room temperature (P77).
While the photoinitiator of Yang is used within a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition for a tape in a battery pack rather than for a coating set on a separator, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of balancing the required irradiation energy of UV during curing with the curing speed, as taught by Yang, would be beneficial to any composition a photoinitiator is used within. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a photoinitiator in 0.02-3 parts by weight of a curable pressure-sensitive adhesive composition to balance the required irradiation energy of UV during curing with the curing speed), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a photoinitiator in 0.02-3 parts by weight of a coating slurry to balance the required irradiation energy of UV during curing with the curing speed), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
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 utilized the teaching of Yang and selected wherein a weight proportion of the photoinitiator in the coating slurry of Cho is 0.02 wt% to 3.0 wt%, given Yang teaches this balances the required irradiation energy of UV during curing with the curing speed.
Modified Cho sets forth a weight proportion of the photoinitiator in the coating slurry is 0.02 wt% to 3.0 wt% which overlaps the claimed range of 0.08 wt% to 1.0 wt%, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses wherein the ceramic layer comprises an inorganic material, and the inorganic material is one or a combination of at least two of silica, alumina, boehmite, titanium oxide, magnesium oxide, or a nanofiber (first coating layer 120 in Fig. 1 includes alumina; see entire disclosure and especially P20, 24, 26).
Regarding claim 15, Cho discloses wherein in the coating slurry, the PVDF-based adhesive polymer resin comprises one or a combination of at least two of a PVDF homopolymer, poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP), poly(vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene-propylene) (PVDF-TFE-P), and poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene- chlorotrifluoroethylene) (PVDF-TFE-CTFE) (water-soluble polymer binder which can be a vinylidene fluoride-based binder which can include a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVdF-HFP) copolymer; see entire disclosure and especially P42, 48, 58).
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses wherein in the coating slurry, the photoinitiator comprises one or a combination of two of isopropylthioxanthone (ITX) and benzophenone (benzophenone; see entire disclosure and especially P65-66).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR20200107406A, using as an English equivalent) in view of Yang et al (US 20220251432 A1) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Brattesani (US 4072694 A).
Regarding claim 5, while modified Cho includes the amount of photoinitiator in the coating slurry forming the adhesive coating layer, modified Cho is silent to the amount of photoinitiator in the adhesive coating layer.
Analogous art is a term used to connect multiple prior arts that are in the same field of endeavor. Modified Cho (via Yang) and Brattesani are analogous art due to their disclosed contents being directed to using photoinitiators
Brattesani teaches “Low photoinitiator concentration is also preferred in photopolymerizable compositions for industrial applications. Only those photoinitiator molecules near the surface of an applied photopolymerizable composition may react to produce free radicals. The residual photoinitiator molecules act as a diluent in the polymerized composition, migrate to its surface leaving voids which adversely affect its structural properties, and are otherwise objectionable” (C1 / L44-52).
From the teaching of Brattesani, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of residual photoinitiator left in a composition/layer must be optimized in order to reduce/minimize/prevent the formation of voids at the surface of the composition/layer which adversely affect the composition/layer’s structural properties. 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 optimized the amount of photoinitiator in the adhesive coating layer, through routine experimentation, to reduce/minimize/prevent the formation of voids at the surface of the adhesive coating layer thereby reducing/minimizing/preventing adverse effects to the structural properties of the adhesive coating layer. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al (US 20180309108 A1) in view of Xu et al (CN106953050A, given in the 12/26/2023 IDS, using the previoulsy provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 4, Shin discloses a coated separator (separator 100 in Fig. 1), comprising a membrane (porous substrate 110 in Figs. 1 and 2a), a ceramic layer (porous coating layer 120a/120c in Figs. 1 and 2a), and an adhesive coating layer (first adhesion layer 131a/131c of adhesion layer 130a/130c in Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the ceramic layer is coated on one or two sides of the membrane and the adhesive coating layer is coated on the ceramic layer (see Figs. 1 and 2a and entire disclosure and especially P28, 44);
the adhesive coating layer is formed by coating a coating slurry (see entire disclosure and especially P52), wherein the coating slurry comprises:
a solvent (see entire disclosure and especially P52) and an adhesive polymer resin, wherein the adhesive polymer resin comprises one or a combination of at least two of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based adhesive polymer resin, a polyimide (PI), a polyetherimide (PEI), and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (a binder resin including a low-melting point polymer resin such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene; see entire disclosure and especially P30, 52).
However, Shin does not disclose the coating slurry further includes a photoinitiator, wherein a weight proportion of the photoinitiator in the coating slurry is 0.08 wt% to 1.0 wt%.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xu teaches a coating slurry that can bond and fix adjacent battery separator layers together (P13). Xu teaches the coating slurry can have the composition of 20-40% coating slurry, 3-6% adhesive, 0.2-0.5% dispersant, 0.2-0.5% gelling agent, 0.05-0.2% plasticizer, 0.05-0.2% anti-aging agent, 0.05-0.2% crosslinking agent, 0.1-0.5% thickener, 0.3-1% photoinitiator, and the balance being deionized water (P13). Xu teaches the coating slurry can be a PVDF slurry (P14).
While the coating slurry of Xu is used to bind adjacent battery separator layers rather than a separator to an electrode, it is a known slurry composition used to adhere two battery layer structures together and one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily recognize it as a composition that could be used to bind other types of battery layers together. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a coating slurry having a composition of 20-40% PVDF slurry, 3-6% adhesive, 0.2-0.5% dispersant, 0.2-0.5% gelling agent, 0.05-0.2% plasticizer, 0.05-0.2% anti-aging agent, 0.05-0.2% crosslinking agent, 0.1-0.5% thickener, 0.3-1% photoinitiator, and deionized water to bond two separator layers together), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a coating slurry having a composition of 20-40% PVDF slurry, 3-6% adhesive, 0.2-0.5% dispersant, 0.2-0.5% gelling agent, 0.05-0.2% plasticizer, 0.05-0.2% anti-aging agent, 0.05-0.2% crosslinking agent, 0.1-0.5% thickener, 0.3-1% photoinitiator, and deionized water to bond a separator to an electrode), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
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 utilized the teaching of Xu and substituted the coating slurry of Shin with the coating slurry of Xu, given both coating slurries are used for adhesion between battery layers, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Modified Shin meets the wherein the coating slurry includes a solvent (deionized water), an adhesive polymer resin, wherein the adhesive polymer resin comprises one or a combination of at least two of a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-based adhesive polymer resin, a polyimide (PI), a polyetherimide (PEI), and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (PVDF slurry), and a photoinitiator.
Modified Shin includes a weight proportion of the photoinitiator in the coating slurry is 0.3 wt% to 1 wt % (P13 of Shin). The range of 0.3 wt% to 1 wt% overlaps the claimed range of 0.08 wt% to 1.0 wt%, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al (US 20180309108 A1) in view of Xu et al (CN106953050A, given in the 12/26/2023 IDS, using the previously provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Brattesani (US 4072694 A).
Regarding claim 5, while modified Shin includes the amount of photoinitiator in the coating slurry forming the adhesive coating layer, modified Shin is silent to the amount of photoinitiator in the adhesive coating layer.
Analogous art is a term used to connect multiple prior arts that are in the same field of endeavor. Modified Shin (via Xu) and Brattesani are analogous art due to their disclosed contents being directed to using photoinitiators
Brattesani teaches “Low photoinitiator concentration is also preferred in photopolymerizable compositions for industrial applications. Only those photoinitiator molecules near the surface of an applied photopolymerizable composition may react to produce free radicals. The residual photoinitiator molecules act as a diluent in the polymerized composition, migrate to its surface leaving voids which adversely affect its structural properties, and are otherwise objectionable” (C1 / L44-52).
From the teaching of Brattesani, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of residual photoinitiator left in a composition/layer must be optimized in order to reduce/minimize/prevent the formation of voids at the surface of the composition/layer which adversely affect the composition/layer’s structural properties. 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 optimized the amount of photoinitiator in the adhesive coating layer, through routine experimentation, to reduce/minimize/prevent the formation of voids at the surface of the adhesive coating layer thereby reducing/minimizing/preventing adverse effects to the structural properties of the adhesive coating layer. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 6, Shin discloses wherein the adhesive coating layer is distributed on the ceramic layer at intervals (see first adhesion layer 131a/131c of adhesion layer 130a/130c in Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 7, Shin discloses wherein the adhesive coating layer coats 20% to 80% of the entire surface of the ceramic layer (see entire disclosure and especially P42 and Fig. 2a). Therefore, if 20 to 80% of the ceramic layer is covered by the adhesive coating layer, then 20% to 80% of the ceramic layer is not covered by the adhesive coating layer.
As seen in Fig. 2a of Shin, there are gaps between distinct sections/intervals of the adhesive coating layer (131a/131c). Therefore, part of the 20% to 80% of the ceramic layer that is not covered by the adhesive coating layer are the gaps between distinct sections/intervals of the adhesive coating layer.
Since part of the 20% to 80% of the ceramic layer that is not covered by the adhesive coating layer are the gaps between distinct sections/intervals of the adhesive coating layer, then greater than 20% and less than 80% of the entire surface of the ceramic layer are the gaps between distinct sections/intervals of the adhesive coating layer.
The maximum adhesive to gaps can be calculated as 80% : more than 20% and the minimum adhesive to gaps can be calculated as 20% : less than 80%. Therefore, the ratio between the two is more than 1:4 and less than 4:1, which overlaps the claimed range of 1:1 to 5:1, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Ula Ruddock 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights