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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/26, 8/30/24, 3/22/24 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 3/22/24 have been considered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0328930).
Regarding claim 1, the Kim et al. reference discloses a separator for an electrochemical device (Abstract), the separator comprising a porous polymer substrate (40) and a porous coating layer formed on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate, wherein the porous coating layer (1000) includes inorganic particles (10) and a polymer binder (30), the inorganic particles include a coating layer of a polymer including an amine group on surfaces the inorganic particles (P8), and at least a portion of the polymer binder is crosslinked with the polymer including the amine group (P42).
Regarding claim 2, the Kim et al. reference discloses the polymer including the amine group is dopamine (P10).
Regarding claim 5, the Kim et al. reference discloses the polymer binder includes a (co)polymer of a monomer selected from the group consisting of acrylate, acrylic acid (P12), maleic acid, itaconic acid, methacrylic acid, and carboxyethyl acrylate.
Regarding claim 6, the Kim et al. reference discloses wherein 60 wt% to 80 wt% of the polymer binder is crosslinked with the polymer including the amine group (P48).
Regarding claim 12, the Kim et al. reference discloses an electrochemical device comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the separator is the separator for the electrochemical device according to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0328930) in view of Young et al. (KR101465173).
Regarding claim 3, the Kim et al. reference discloses the claimed invention and further incorporated herein. The Kim et al. reference is silent in specifying the thickness of the coating layer is 2-20nm, however, the Young et al. reference also discloses a ceramic coating layer comprising amine polymers on a porous substrate for use in an electrochemical device separator and further discloses the ceramic coating layer to be 0.01 to 50 microns thick. The Young et al. reference further discloses the thickness is to prevent internal resistance increase and ensure the safety of the battery of the electrochemical device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a thickness of 0.01 to 50 microns of the ceramic coating layer disclosed by the Young et al. reference for the thickness of ceramic coating layer of the Kim et al. reference in order to ensure electrochemical safety.
At least 0.01 microns (between 2-20nm) taught by the Young et al. reference would read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the Kim et al. reference discloses the claimed invention and further incorporated herein. The Kim et al. reference is silent in specifying the porous coating layer includes the inorganic particles in a content of 90 wt% to 95 wt% based on a total weight of the porous coating layer. However, the Young et al. reference discloses the same invention as that of the Kim et al. reference and provides 90 wt% of the inorganic particles for the ceramic porous layer. The inorganic particles in the coating layer add to the safety of the separator and the amount contained will suppress heat shrinkage. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate 90 wt% of inorganic particles disclosed by the Young et al. reference for the ceramic coating layer with inorganic particles disclosed by the Kim et al. reference to providing a safer battery.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0328930) in view of Nakajima et al. (JP2004273437).
Regarding claim 4, the Kim et al. reference discloses the claimed invention and further incorporated herein. The Kim et al. reference discloses the ceramic layer separator is to provide thermal stability at high temperature operation of the electrochemical device but is silent in specifying that the polymer binder is a polyether sulfone, however, the Nakajima et a. reference discloses polyether sulfone for separator provides stability even at a high potential, and is excellent in dimensional stability, heat resistance and flame retardancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate polyether sulfone polymer binder for adhering the separator membrane that comprises inorganic particles disclosed by the Nakajima et a. reference for the separator membrane with adhered inorganic particles disclosed by the Kim et al. reference so to provide improve thermal stability to the electrochemical device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0328930) in view of Lee et al. (US Publication 2011/0259505).
Regarding claim 7, the Kim et al. reference discloses the claimed invention and further incorporated herein. The Kim et al. reference discloses the porous ceramic layer separator provides thermal stability at high temperature operation of the electrochemical device but is silent in specifying wherein the loading amount of porous coating layer for a unit area of the porous polymer substrate is 5.5 g/m2 to 8 g/m2. However, the Lee et a. reference discloses the loading of ceramic layer can be adjusted to be from 5 g/m2 to 20 g/m2 in consideration of the function of a resulting coating layer and applicability to a high capacity battery (P39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the loading amount of 5.5 g/m2 to 20 g/m2 of porous coating layer for a unit area of the porous polymer substrate disclosed by Lee et a. reference for the porous coating layer on the porous polymer substrate since a patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0328930).
Regarding claim 9, the Kim et al. reference discloses the claimed invention and further incorporated herein. The Kim et al. reference discloses the coating layer comprises a midlayer (200), which appears to imply that there is a layer above and below the midlayer in order for a midlayer to exist. The Kim et a. reference is silent in specifying that a second polymer coating layer formed on a surface of the porous coating layer, wherein the second polymer coating layer includes the polymer including the amine group. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date to have provide the same layer with same components above the midlayer in order to duplicate parts for a multiplied effect since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV)
Providing the same layer on top of the coating layer or splitting the porous coating layer into two would have been obvious. As a result, the second polymer coating layer would also include amine group.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kim et al. reference discloses multiple layers with the same components and would function same. As a result, the modified Kim discloses at least a portion of the polymer including amine group in the second polymer coating is crosslinked with the polymer binder of the coating layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights