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 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “surface roughness Ra” in claims 2 and 8 is used by the claim to mean a unitless measure of roughness, while the accepted meaning is average deviation from the surface in units of length. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (KR 20140070240 A; citations refer to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a separator for an electrochemical device comprising a porous polymer substrate (Han [0016]) coated with inorganic particles in a polymer binder (Han [0008]), and the substrate has a concave pattern portion with indentation in the surface (Han Fig. 4 and [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the inorganic coating layer has a concave pattern engaged with the pattern of the substrate (Han Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Han does not require the use of any particular polymer. Han teaches that the porous polymer may be selected from a list including polyolefins (Han [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the listed polymers, including polyolefins.
Regarding claim 10, Han does not require the use of any particular inorganic material. Han teaches that the inorganic particles may be selected from the same list of materials (Han [0019]-[0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the listed materials, including those of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0141312 A1) in view of Han.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a separator for an electrochemical device with a separator substrate (porous substrate 110 and patterned fabric layer 120) comprising a porous polymer (Kim [0040]-[0041]) and a coating of ceramic (i.e. inorganic) particles on the surface of the substrate (Kim Fig. 4 and [0069]), and the substrate has a concave pattern portion with indentation in the surface (Kim Figs. 4 and 6).
Kim does not teach that the ceramic layer includes a polymer binder. Han is directed to a separator for an electrochemical device. Han teaches that such coating layers typically include inorganic particles and a polymer binder (Han [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional method to form the ceramic layer of Kim, including use of a polymer binder.
Regarding claim 3, the inorganic coating layer has a concave pattern engaged with the pattern of the substrate (Kim Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the separator has a constant thickness, and the patterns are engaged with each other where they meet (Kim Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the substrate has indentations in the thickness direction (Kim Fig. 4), which make up 50-99% of the substrate area (Kim [0079]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by modified Kim, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the substrate sheet comprises a porous polyolefin (Kim [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the use of Al2O3 (Kim [0123]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2002/0076606 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches the use of the separator in an electrode assembly with positive and negative electrodes, where the negative electrode comprises active material on a current collector (Kim [0085]-[0087] and Fig. 7). Modified Kim does not teach the use of a tab extending from the current collector and overlapping the separator. However, the use of tabs extending from the current collector and overlapping separator portions is a well-known means of connecting electrodes to a terminal without causing short circuits. See, for example, Fig. 4 of Matsumoto, which is directed to a spirally-rolled cylindrical battery (Matsumoto Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional configuration to complete the battery of modified Kim, including the use to anode tabs and overlapping separator portions.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han and Matsumoto as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0373299 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim does not teach the presence of an inclined portion of the anode that overlaps with the separator. Takeda is directed to a rechargeable battery with a laminated electrode structure (Takeda Abstract). Takeda teaches that high anode loading (above 18 mg/cm2) necessarily results in inclined portions of the ends of anodes active material layers (Takeda [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate anode loading, including values above 18 mg/cm2, which would necessarily result in an inclined portion of the anode that overlaps the separator.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WC Han (US 2009/0092898 A1) in view of Raptor ("Creating an Anchor Pattern For Surface Coatings," https://www.raptorblaster.com/anchor-pattern-painting-coating/, August 2019; retrieved July 15, 2026) and Zhang et al. (US 2016/0164060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, WC Han discloses a separator for an electrochemical device with a separator substrate (film separator 4) comprising a porous polymer (WC Han [0010]) and a coating of ceramic (i.e. inorganic) particles and a polymer binder on the surface of the substrate (WC Han [0038]-[0040] and Fig. 7).
WC Han does not teach that the surface of the separator substrate has a concave pattern portion. Zhang is directed to a separator for a lithium battery. Zhang teaches that good adhesion between separator base layers and ceramic/polymer coatings is necessary to ensure good ion conductivity of the electrolyte (Zhang [0059]). Raptor is directed to improving surface coatings (Raptor Title and opening paragraphs). Raptor teaches that an appropriate anchor pattern of peaks and valleys (i.e. a concave pattern portion including indentations in the surface) is necessary to prevent coating failure (Raptor opening paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add an anchor pattern to the coated surface of the separator substrate to ensure good adhesion of the layer and thereby ensure good ion conductivity of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 3, modified WC Han teaches that an optimal pattern includes complementary convex pattern on the coating to engage the indentations in the surface of the anchor pattern (Raptor How the Anchor Pattern Affects Coating Adhesion).
Regarding claim 4, the coated region of modified WC Han has a constant thickness (WC Han Fig. 7; Raptor How the Anchor Pattern Affects Coating Adhesion).
Regarding claim 5, the coated (i.e. patterned) region of modified WC Han is less than 2/3 of the electrode plates (WC Han [0021] and [0024]), which are shorter than the separator substrate (WC Han Fig. 7), so the patterned area is less than 2/3 of area of the separator, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any covered area, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the substrate is a porous polyolefin sheet (WC Han [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, the ceramic particles are alumina, silica, zirconia, barium titanate, or titanium dioxide (WC Han [0039]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WC Han in view of Raptor and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhan et al. ("Effect of Substrate Surface Texture Shapes on the Adhesion of Plasma-Sprayed Ni-Based Coatings," Journal of Thermal Spray Technology 30, pp. 270-284, November 2020).
Regarding claim 6, the patterned area of modified WC Han has indentations in the thickness direction (Raptor How the Anchor Pattern Affects Coating Adhesion). Modified WC Han does not teach any particular area for the indented portion. Zhan is directed the adhesion of coatings on a substrate (Zhan Introduction). Zhan teaches that contact area ratio (i.e. the ratio of surface area to indented surface area; Zhan Contact Area Ratio Between Coating and Substrate) should be considered to improve coating adhesion (Zhan Conclusions). Indentation area is therefore an art-recognized result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate indentation area, including values within the range of the instant claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, the coated (i.e. patterned) region of modified WC Han is less than 2/3 of the electrode plates (WC Han [0021] and [0024]), which are shorter than the separator substrate (WC Han Fig. 7), so the patterned area is less than 2/3 of area of the separator, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any covered area, including values within the range of the instant claim.
The patterned area of modified WC Han has indentations in the thickness direction (Raptor How the Anchor Pattern Affects Coating Adhesion). Modified WC Han does not teach any particular area for the indented portion. Zhan is directed the adhesion of coatings on a substrate (Zhan Introduction). Zhan teaches that contact area ratio (i.e. the ratio of surface area to indented surface area; Zhan Contact Area Ratio Between Coating and Substrate) should be considered to improve coating adhesion (Zhan Conclusions). Indentation area is therefore an art-recognized result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate indentation area, including values within the range of the instant claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saeki (US 2021/0249735 A1) is directed to a patterned separator with an inorganic coating (Saeki Abstract and [0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights