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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’
Regarding Claim 1,
Ying teaches a separator comprising a base film (Ying, microporous pseudo-boehmite layer, 20, Fig. 9) and a coating on the base film (Ying, protective coating layer, 30 , Fig. 9), wherein the coating comprises a ceramic layer (Ying, “The protective coating layer comprising a polymer of the separator of the present invention may further comprise a pigment. Suitable pigments for use in the polymer protective coating layer include, but are not limited to, colloidal silicas, amorphous silicas, surface treated silicas, colloidal aluminas, amorphous alumina ”, see [0097]) partially embedded in the base film (Ying, “The term “pseudo-boehmite,” as used herein, pertains to hydrated aluminum oxides having the chemical formula Al2O3·xH2O wherein x is in the range of from 1.0 to 1.5.”, see [0105]) and a boehmite-like layer on the ceramic layer (Ying, third layer, 22, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 2,
Ying teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the ceramic layer embedded in the base film accounts for 5%-100% (Ying, “A coating mixture comprising 86 parts by weight (solid content) of DISPAL 11N7-12 (a trademark for boehmite sol available from CONDEA Vista Company, Houston, Tex.)”, see [0176])
Regarding Claim 4,
Ying teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the separator satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) a thickness of the ceramic layer is 0.5-10 μm (Ying, “ In one embodiment, the protective coating layer has a thickness of from about 0.2 microns to about 20 microns.”, see [0026]); (2) a thickness of the base film is 4-20 μm; (3) a thickness of the boehmite-like layer is 0.5-10 μm (Ying, “in one embodiment, the pseudo-boehmite layer of the separator has a thickness of from 1 micron to 50 microns. In a preferred embodiment, the pseudo-boehmite layer has a thickness of from 1 micron to 25 microns. In a more preferred embodiment, the pseudo-boehmite layer has a thickness of from 2 microns to 15 microns.”, see [0033]); and (4) a thickness of the thermally conductive layer is 0.5-2 μm.
Regarding Claim 5,
Ying teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic is selected from one or more of an oxide, a nitride, a fluoride or an oxysalt of the following elements: Al, Fe, Ti, Co, Zn, Cu, Ni, Mn or Sn; optionally, the ceramic is selected from one or more of an Fe oxide, an Fe oxysalt, a Ti oxide, a Ti oxysalt, a Zn oxide, NiO, CuO, or SnO2; and more optionally, the ceramic is selected from one or more of Fe2O3, FePO4, TiO2, ZnO, Li4Ti5O12, NiO, CuO, or SnO (Ying, “The protective coating layer comprising a polymer of the separator of the present invention may further comprise a pigment. Suitable pigments for use in the polymer protective coating layer include, but are not limited to, colloidal silicas, amorphous silicas, surface treated silicas, colloidal aluminas, amorphous alumina”, see [0097])
Regarding Claim 6,
Ying teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic is a number of ceramic particles, and the ceramic particles have a volume-average particle size Dv50 ≥ 100 nm (Ying, “In a more preferred embodiment, the pigment of the protective coating layer has a particle size of from about 5 nm to about 3,000 nm.”, see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Ying teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the boehmite-like layer is selected from one or more of boehmite, alumina, zirconia or magnesia (Ying, “The term “pseudo-boehmite,” as used herein, pertains to hydrated aluminum oxides having the chemical formula Al2O3·xH2O wherein x is in the range of from 1.0 to 1.5. Terms used herein, which are synonymous with “pseudo-boehmite,” include “boehmite,” “AlOOH,” and “hydrated alumina”, see [0105]).
Regarding Claim 18,
Ying teaches a secondary battery, comprising a separator according to claim 1. (Ying, “In one embodiment of the electric current producing cell, the cell is a secondary battery. In one embodiment of the electric current producing cell, the cell is a primary battery.”, see [0050])
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view of ‘Safer Lithium-Ion Batteries from the Separator Aspect: Development and Future Perspectives’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’
Regarding Claim 3,
Ying does not teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the coating further comprises a thermally conductive layer on a surface, away from the base film, of the boehmite-like layer.
Liu teaches herein the coating further comprises a thermally conductive layer on a surface, away from the base film (Liu, “wherein the thermally conductive layer has a thermal conductivity coefficient ≥ 20 W/(m.K).”, see 4.1.3 Constructing a thermally conductive Separator).
Liu teaches that the thermally conductive separator has improved Coulombic efficiency (Liu, “The cell with BN-coated separator formed less nuclei, and the diameter of deposited Li wires was much larger, resulting in improved Coulombic efficiency and reliability”, see 4.1.3 Constructing a thermally conductive Separator).
Ying and Liu are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator coatings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the conductive coating as taught in Liu to the separator as taught in Ying in order to improve the Columbic efficiency of the cell.
Regarding Claim 8,
Ying does not teach the separator according to claim 3, wherein the thermally conductive layer has a thermal conductivity coefficient ≥ 20 W/(m.K).
Liu teaches wherein the thermally conductive layer has a thermal conductivity coefficient ≥ 20 W/(m.K) (Liu, “wherein the thermally conductive layer has a thermal conductivity coefficient ≥ 20 W/(m.K).”, see 4.1.3 Constructing a thermally conductive Separator).
Liu teaches that the thermally conductive separator has improved Coulombic efficiency (Liu, “The cell with BN-coated separator formed less nuclei, and the diameter of deposited Li wires was much larger, resulting in improved Coulombic efficiency and reliability”, see 4.1.3 Constructing a thermally conductive Separator).
Ying and Liu are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator coatings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the conductive coating as taught in Liu to the separator as taught in Ying in order to improve the Columbic efficiency of the cell.
Claims 10,12,13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view of ‘Highly scalable and solvent-free fabrication of a solid polymer electrolyte separator via film casting technology’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wiegmann’
Regarding Claim 10,
Ying teaches a method for preparing the separator according to claim 1, comprising: 1) a mixture containing a base film raw material of a separator and a pore-forming agent (Ying, “(a) coating onto a substrate a first liquid mixture, A, comprising a boehmite sol, or alternatively, coating onto a substrate a first liquid mixture, B, comprising one or more polymers, monomers, or macromonomers, to form a first coating layer”, see [0037]); 2) uniformly dispersing the ceramic particles on one surface of the base film to obtain a composite base film (Ying, “(b) drying the first coating layer formed in step (a) to form a microporous pseudo-boehmite layer, if the first liquid mixture A was utilized in step (a), or alternatively, drying the first coating layer formed in step (a) to form a protective coating layer,”, see [0037]); and 3) uniformly coating boehmite-like particles and an optional thermally conductive material onto the composite base film obtained in step 2) sequentially (Ying, “(b), or alternatively, coating onto the layer formed in step (b) a second liquid mixture, A′, comprising a boehmite sol, if a protective coating layer was formed in step (b), to form a second coating layer; ”, see [0037]).
Modified Ying does not teach melting a mixture extruding the mixture to form a base film.
Wiegmann teaches melting a mixture extruding the mixture to form a base film (Wiegmann, “ For melt-extrusion with a twin-screw extruder, Hydro-Québec patented a direct coating of the cathode with SPE which should improve the interface contact”, see Introduction) (Wiegmann, “the nozzle (angle of 90° to the front) applied a melted SPE film on a not tempered chill roll (CR 144 S, COLLIN Lab & Pilot Solutions GmbH, Germany). The chill roll was handled with a web speed, including speed of calender rolls and unwinder, between 1 and 5 m min−1”, see 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film unit).
Wiegmann teaches that this process allows for improve accuracy with regard to thickness and density (Wiegmann, “Compared to the considered reference process, the developed film casting process showed improved precision at higher throughputs regarding a constant film thickness below 30 μm and SPE density.”, see Abstract).
Ying and Wiegmann are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process as taught in Ying to have a chill roller as taught in Wiegmann order to improve the density of the film.
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Ying does teach the method according to claim 10, wherein step 1) further comprises a step of passing through a casting cooling roller after the extrusion (Wiegmann, “the nozzle (angle of 90° to the front) applied a melted SPE film on a not tempered chill roll (CR 144 S, COLLIN Lab & Pilot Solutions GmbH, Germany). The chill roll was handled with a web speed, including speed of calender rolls and unwinder, between 1 and 5 m min−1”, see 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film unit).
.
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Ying teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein 2) is performed synchronously with the passing through a casting cooling roller in claim 12; or 2) is performed synchronously with the passing through a casting cooling roller in claim 12; or 2) is performed no later than 10 s-1 h (Wiegmann, “The separator film formed by the heated slot die was applied on the chill roll. Here the hot separator was layered between two release foils to prevent adhesion on the roller surfaces. Fig. 3 visualizes the actual coating step from the slot die to the chill roll.”, see Results and Discussion ) (The examiner notes that the combination teaches not just Wiegmann alone).
Regarding Claim 19,
Modified Ying teaches a secondary battery, comprising a separator prepared by the method according to claim 10 (Ying, “In one embodiment of the electric current producing cell, the cell is a secondary battery. In one embodiment of the electric current producing cell, the cell is a primary battery.”, see [0050]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view (US-20200343506-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’
Regarding Claim 9,
Ying does not teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the base film is selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, aramid fiber, polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyacrylonitrile, polyimide, polyamide, polyester or natural fibers; and optionally, the base film is selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polytetrafluoroethylene
Kim teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the base film is selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, aramid fiber, polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyacrylonitrile, polyimide, polyamide, polyester or natural fibers; and optionally, the base film is selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polytetrafluoroethylene (Kim, “In an embodiment, the polyolefin may be one selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene”, see [0013]).
Kim teaches that when the content of the polymer is too high the viscosity makes a separator hard to form (Kim, “When the content of the polyolefin in the composition is greater than 40% by weight, melt viscosity of an extruded melt increases such that it is difficult to mold or cast a sheet due to worsened die-swell phenomenon after being discharged through a T-die discharge, and it is difficult to generate an appropriate microporous structure in a porous membrane.”, see [0047]).
Ying and Kim are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the mixture in step 1 to be made of the polymer as taught in Kim in order to allow for the viscosity as needed for the solution process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view of ‘Highly scalable and solvent-free fabrication of a solid polymer electrolyte separator via film casting technology’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wiegmann’ in view (US-20200343506-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Ying does not teach, wherein a mass ratio of the base film raw material of a separator to the pore-forming agent in the mixture of step 1) is (0.1-0.7) : 1.
Kim teaches wherein a mass ratio of the base film raw material of a separator to the pore-forming agent in the mixture of step 1) is (0.1-0.7) : 1. (Kim, “ The composition may include 10 to 40% by weight of the polyolefin and 60 to 90% by weight of the pore-forming agent. ”, see [0047]).
Kim teaches that when the content of the polymer is too high the viscosity makes a separator hard to form (Kim, “When the content of the polyolefin in the composition is greater than 40% by weight, melt viscosity of an extruded melt increases such that it is difficult to mold or cast a sheet due to worsened die-swell phenomenon after being discharged through a T-die discharge, and it is difficult to generate an appropriate microporous structure in a porous membrane.”, see [0047]).
Ying and Kim are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the mixture in step 1 to having a ratio of pore forming agent as taught in Kim in order to control the viscosity of the solution and allow for proper manufacturing.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view of ‘Highly scalable and solvent-free fabrication of a solid polymer electrolyte separator via film casting technology’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wiegmann’ in view (US-20140242295-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mitsunori’
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Ying does not teach the method according to claim 10, wherein 2) further comprises passing through a thermal compounding roller or drying in an oven.
Mitsunori teaches wherein 2) further comprises passing through a thermal compounding roller or drying in an oven (Mitsunori, “The pressure for the heat press is generally 0.1 to 10 MPa, preferably 0.3 to 5 MPa, more preferably 0.5 to 3 MPa, from the viewpoint that the electrodes and the separator for a secondary battery are tightly attached while maintaining the porosity of the separator for a secondary battery. Furthermore, the time for conducting the heat press is generally 2 to 60 seconds, preferably 5 to 40 seconds, more preferably 8 to 20 seconds, from the viewpoint that the electrode active material layers and the separator for a secondary battery can be tightly attached, and thus high producibility is ensured.”, see [0155]).
Mitsunori teaches that this heat rolling allows for maintaining the porosity of the separator (Mitsunori, “The pressure for the heat press is generally 0.1 to 10 MPa, preferably 0.3 to 5 MPa, more preferably 0.5 to 3 MPa, from the viewpoint that the electrodes and the separator for a secondary battery are tightly attached while maintaining the porosity of the separator for a secondary battery. Furthermore, the time for conducting the heat press is generally 2 to 60 seconds, preferably 5 to 40 seconds, more preferably 8 to 20 seconds, from the viewpoint that the electrode active material layers and the separator for a secondary battery can be tightly attached, and thus high producibility is ensured.”, see [0155]).
Modified Ying and Mitsunori are analogous as they are both of the same field of separators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process as taught in Modified Ying to add a heated pressure roller in order to tightly attached the separator layers while maintaining the porosity desired.
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Ying teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein 2) satisfies one or more of the following conditions: (1) a temperature of the thermal compounding roller is 80-190°C; and (2) a pressure of the thermal compounding roller is 5-100 MPa, optionally 10-50 MPa (Mitsunori, “The pressure for the heat press is generally 0.1 to 10 MPa, preferably 0.3 to 5 MPa, more preferably 0.5 to 3 MPa”, see [0155]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US -20010000485-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ying’ in view of ‘Highly scalable and solvent-free fabrication of a solid polymer electrolyte separator via film casting technology’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wiegmann’ in view (US-20240347856-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Ying does not teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises stretching the composite base film, after step 2) and before step 3).
Zhang teaches wherein the method further comprises stretching the composite base film, after step 2) and before step 3) (Zhang, “(2) a stretching step of biaxially stretching the sheet-shaped molded body at an area increase of 20-fold or more and 250-fold or less to obtain a stretched sheet”, see [0039]).
Zhang teaches that this stretching step is necessary to affect the crystallinity of the separator to a desired degree (Zhang, “To increase the crystal long period, it is necessary to increase the amount of deformation in the stretching process, leading to deterioration of the heat shrink ability of the separator.”, see [0127]).
Modified Ying and Zhang are analogous as they are both of the same field of separator processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator as taught in Ying to have the stretching as taught in Zhang in order to control the crystallinity of the material to a desired point.
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Ying teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the method further comprises a step of extracting the pore-forming agent from the composite base film, after the composite base film is stretched (Zhang,” (6) a drying step of drying to remove a solvent in the heat-resistant resin;”, see [0065]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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 A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights