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 Objections
Claims 1-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1,
the phrase “at least a portion of surface” should be changed to “at least a portion of a surface.”
the phrase “bulges on surface of the coating” should be changed to “bulges on a surface of the coating.”
the phrase “the inorganic particle is present” should be changed to “the inorganic particles are present.”
the phrase “and crosslinking degree a of the composite particle” should be changed to “and a crosslinking degree a of the composite particle.”
the phrase “and mass swelling degree b thereof” should be changed to “and a mass swelling degree b thereof.”
Claims 2-31 are similarly objected to as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 7 is objected to because the phrase “wherein Dv50 of the inorganic particles” should be changed to read “wherein a Dv50 of the inorganic particles.”
Claim 9 is objected to because the phrase “wherein Dv50 of the second agglomerate” should be changed to read “wherein a Dv50 of the second agglomerate.”
Claim 12 is objected to because the phrase “wherein Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles” should be changed to read “wherein a Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles.”
Claim 13 is objected to because the phrase “wherein percentage of the inorganic particles in the composite particles” should be changed to read “wherein a percentage of the inorganic particles in the composite particles.”
Claim 14 is objected to because the phrase “wherein two-side height of the bulges is 15 μm–60 μm” should be changed to read “wherein a two-side height of the bulges is 15 μm–60 μm.”
Claim 15 is objected to because the phrase “on surface of the bulge” should be changed to read “on a surface of the bulge.”
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 15 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 15 recites the limitation "the first agglomerate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bulge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 invokes plural “bulges.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establiShin et al.g 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17, and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a separator, comprising:
a substrate; and a coating, wherein the coating is formed on at least a portion of surface of the substrate (see e.g. substrate and coating layer, which coats and thereby is formed on at least a portion of the substrate, Kim et al.: [0040]),
and the coating comprises composite particles (see e.g. first organic particles 20 and inorganic particles 40, which collectively read on composite particles, Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2) and a binder (see e.g. organic binder, Kim et al.: [0083]),
the composite particles form bulges on surface of the coating (i.e., particles 20/40 occupy space on the surface of the coating and can reasonably be said to form bulges, as shown in , Kim et al.: Fig. 4), and the composite particles comprise polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0055], the organic particles 20 may be polymethyl methacrylate, which is a polyacrylate) and inorganic particles (see e.g. inorganic particles 40, Kim et al.: [0050]),
PNG
media_image1.png
414
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 4 of Kim et al..
wherein the inorganic particle is present between at least two of the polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, inorganic particle 40 is present between two polyacrylate particles 20).
Kim et al. does not disclose the crosslinking degree or the mass swelling degree of the composite particles, and does not disclose a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1 and a ≥ 75%.
Kim et al. ‘680 teaches an analogous battery separator having an acryl-based binder polymer (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0027], [0084], and Fig. 1). Kim et al. ‘680 further teaches that crosslinked polymer chains provides resistance against an electrolyte solution, and that a crosslinking degree of 90% or more (which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of a ≥ 75%) is preferred to prevent delamination of the binder in an electrolyte (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0028]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. by setting the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles to be a ≥ 75%, because Kim et al. ‘680 teaches that this prevents delamination of the binder in an electrolyte.
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as applied above does not teach that a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1.
Kim et al. ‘038 teaches an analogous binder for a battery separator having a coating layer (see e.g. porous film, Kim et al. ‘038: [0015]) comprising a binder polymer, and further teaches that it is preferable for binder polymer to have a degree of swelling in an electrolyte solution that is 200% or less, and that when the degree of swelling exceeds this range, the binder material may become detached from the electrode and wrinkles may appear (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘038: [0018]). Kim et al. ‘038’s degree of swelling range of 200% or less overlaps and thereby renders obvious the range 75% or less. As such, the combined teachings of Kim et al. ‘038 with Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as set forth above would render obvious the condition a/b ≥ 1, since Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 teaches a ≥ 75% and a value of 75% or less for b would satisfy the relationship a/b ≥ 1. For example, if a =80% and b = 75%, a/b = (.8/.75) = 1.07 > 1.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 by setting the degree of swelling to be 75% or less, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038, such that the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to keep the binder material from becoming detached and to prevent the formation of wrinkles, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038.
As to claim 2, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1 wherein a/b takes a value of 1–2.1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combined teachings of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teach a value of a ≥ 90% or more and b ≤ 200%, such that, for example, a/b equals 1 when a = 90% and b = 90%, and a/b = 2.1 when a=90% and b=42.86%).
As to claim 3, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1.
The instantly-claimed “composite particles” are defined only as polyacrylate particles and inorganic particles where the inorganic particle is present between at least two polyacrylate particles. Therefore, under a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “composite particle,” an aggregation of particles of any size can reasonably be considered to be a composite particle. As such, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches a separator wherein the Dv50 of the composite particles is ≥ 2.5 μm.
As to claim 4, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the composite particles comprise a first agglomerate, and the first agglomerate comprises at least two of the inorganic particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, a collection of at least two of inorganic particles 40 and one or more first organic particles 20 can reasonably be described as an agglomerate).
As to claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the composite particles comprise inorganic particles of primary particle morphology (see e.g. inorganic particles 40, Kim et al.: Fig. 2, the individual inorganic particles can reasonably be described as being of primary particle morphology).
As to claim 7, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 6, wherein a Dv50 of the inorganic particles of the primary particle morphology is 0.01 μm–1 μm (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0070], the average diameter or Dv50 of inorganic particles 40 is 0.2 μm-0.4 μm, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 0.1 μm-1 μm).
As to claim 8, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the composite particles comprise a second agglomerate, and the second agglomerate comprises at least two of the polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2. Kim et al. discloses an aggregation of particles that comprises at least two of first organic particles 20, and as such reads on a second agglomerate that comprises at least two polyacrylate particles).
As to claim 9, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 8, wherein Dv50 of the second agglomerate is 0.3 μm–5 μm (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, Kim et al. discloses first organic particles 20 that have a Dv50 of 0.3 μm-0.7 μm as per [0052], and as such an aggregation of two such particles has a Dv50 of 2x0.3 μm-2x0.7 μm = 0.6 μm-1.4 μm, which lies within and thereby anticipates the range of 0.3 μm–5 μm).
As to claim 10, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the polyacrylate particles comprise polyacrylate particles of primary particle morphology and/or polyacrylate particles of secondary particle morphology (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2, the first organic particles 20 have a particulate shape, and can thereby reasonably be considered to comprise particles of primary particle morphology).
As to claim 11, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 10, wherein Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles of the primary particle morphology is 50 nm–400 nm (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0052], first organic particles 20 have an average diameter of 0.3 μm-0.7 μm, which lies within and thereby renders obvious the claimed Dv50 range of 50 nm-400 nm).
As to claim 12, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 10. The instant claim limitation of “wherein Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles of the secondary particle morphology is 2 μm–15 μm” is proviso upon the limitation that the polyacrylate particles have secondary particle morphology, which is not required by claim 10 since claim 10 states that the polyacrylate particles may alternately have secondary particle morphology. Therefore, the limitation of claim 12 does not come into force.
As to claim 14, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the coating layer is 0.3 μm to 5 μm, such that the two-side height of the bulges can be taken to be 0.6 μm -10 μm (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0077] and para [0101] of the Instant Specification), which lies outside the claimed range of 15 μm–60 μm.
However, absent any indication of the criticality of the claimed two-side height of the bulges, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 such that the two-side height of the bulges is in the range of 15 μm–60 μm, because such a modification would represent a simple change in the dimensions of the coating thickness that would fail to alter the operation of the coating layer in a patentably distinct manner or to produce any new or unexpected benefit.
As to claim 15, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches a first agglomerate (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, showing an agglomeration of first organic particles 20 and inorganic particles 40 that can reasonably be considered to be a first agglomerate) that is present in a coating layer on a substrate (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0040] and [0050]). As such, the first agglomerate of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 can reasonably be said to be present on a surface of a bulge formed by the particles.
As to claim 17, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the composite particles have an area coverage of 10%–25% on the coating (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0057], stating that the first organic particles may be distributed on a surface of the coating layer in an area ratio of about 5% or greater to about 15% or less, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 10%-25%).
As to claim 18, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles comprise one or more of oxides of silicon, aluminum, calcium, zinc, and magnesium, and sodium sulfate, sodium benzoate, calcium carbonate, and modified materials thereof, optionally one or more of silicon dioxide, silica sol, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, and sodium benzoate and more optionally one or more of fumed silica, silicon micro-powder, aluminum oxide, and sodium benzoate (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0071], inorganic particles 40 may comprise aluminum oxide (Al2O33) silica, calcium oxide (CaO), zinc oxide (ZnO), or magnesium oxide (MgO)).
As to claim 23, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein the coating further comprises organic particles (see e.g. second organic particles 30, Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2), the organic particles comprising at least one of polytetrafluoroethylene particles, polytrifluoroethylene particles, polyvinyl fluoride particles, polyvinylidene fluoride particles, polyethylene particles, polypropylene particles, polyacrylonitrile particles, polyethylene oxide particles, copolymer particles of fluorine-containing alkenyl monomer units and vinyl monomer units, copolymer particles of fluorine-containing alkenyl monomer units and acrylic monomer units, copolymer particles of fluorine-containing alkenyl monomer units and acrylate monomer units, and modified compound particles of the homopolymers or copolymers (see e.g.Kim et al.: [0064], the second organic particles comprise acrylates or derivatives thereof, which reads on particles comprising acrylate monomer units);
and the organic particles and the composite particles form bulges on the surface of the coating (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0012]-[0013], the coating layer is on the surface of a substrate and therefore the particles of the coating layer necessarily form bulges on the surface of the coating).
As to claim 24, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 23, wherein the organic particles form a third agglomerate (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, a collection of at least two of organic particles 20 can reasonably be described as a third agglomerate).
As to claim 25, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 24, wherein Dv50 of the third agglomerate is 5 μm–30 μm (see e.g. Kim et al.: Figs. 2-3, an agglomeration of particles having a size in the range of 5 μm–30 μm can reasonably be understood to be a third agglomerate).
As to claim 26, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 24, wherein the third agglomerate comprises organic particles of primary particle morphology (see e.g. Kim et al.; Fig. 2, a collection of at least two of organic particles 20 can reasonably be described as a third agglomerate, the individual organic particles 20 can reasonably be said to have primary particle morphology), and a gap is present between adjacent two of the organic particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: Figs. 2-3, as the organic particles 20 are spherical, a gap necessarily exists between adjacent particles).
As to claim 27, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 26, wherein Dv50 of the organic particles of the primary particle morphology is 50 nm–400 nm (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0052], the first organic particles 20 have an average particle diameter of 0.3 μm – 0.7 μm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 50 nm-400 nm).
As to claim 28, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 23, wherein a mass ratio of the composite particles to the organic particles is (20–90):(0–70) (see e.g. Kim et al.: Figs. 2-3. Given that the term “composite particle” can comprise any collection of particles comprising polyacrylate particles and inorganic particles, an arbitrary group of particles having a mass ratio of the composite particles to the organic particles is (20–90):(0–70) can be considered to read on the claimed composite particle).
As to claim 29, Kim et al. discloses a method for preparing the separator according to claim 1, comprising the following steps:
providing a substrate; and forming a coating comprising composite particles and a binder on at least a portion of surface of the substrate (see e.g. substrate and coating layer, which coats and thereby is formed on at least a portion of the substrate, Kim et al.: [0040]. This coating layer comprises first organic particles 20 and inorganic particles 40, which collectively read on composite particles, Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2),
wherein the composite particles form bulges on surface of the coating (i.e., particles 20/40 occupy space on the surface of the coating and can reasonably be said to form bulges), and
the composite particles comprise polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0055], the organic particles 20 may be polymethyl methacrylate, which is a polyacrylate) and inorganic particles (see e.g. inorganic particles 40, Kim et al.: [0050]), and the inorganic particle is present between at least two of the polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, inorganic particle 40 is present between two polyacrylate particles 20).
Kim et al. does not disclose the crosslinking degree or the mass swelling degree of the composite particles of Kim et al.’s method, and does not disclose a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1 and a ≥ 75%.
Kim et al. ‘680 teaches an analogous battery separator having an acryl-based binder polymer (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0027], [0084], and Fig. 1). Kim et al. ‘680 further teaches that crosslinked polymer chains provides resistance against an electrolyte solution, and that a crosslinking degree of 90% or more (which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of a ≥ 75%) is preferred to prevent delamination of the binder in an electrolyte (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0028]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al.’s method by setting the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles to be a ≥ 75%, because Kim et al. ‘680 teaches that this prevents delamination of the binder in an electrolyte.
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as applied above does not teach that a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1.
Kim et al. ‘038 teaches an analogous binder for a battery separator having a coating layer (see e.g. porous film, Kim et al. ‘038: [0015]) comprising a binder polymer, and further teaches that it is preferable for binder polymer to have a degree of swelling in an electrolyte solution that is 200% or less, and that when the degree of swelling exceeds this range, the binder material may become detached from the electrode and wrinkles may appear (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘038: [0018]). Kim et al. ‘038’s degree of swelling range of 200% or less overlaps and thereby renders obvious the range 75% or less. As such, the combined teachings of Kim et al. ‘038 with Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as set forth above would render obvious the condition a/b ≥ 1, since Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 teaches a ≥ 75% and a value of 75% or less for b would satisfy the relationship a/b ≥ 1. For example, if a =80% and b = 75%, a/b = (.8/.75) = 1.07 > 1.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 by setting the degree of swelling to be 75% or less, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038, such that the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to keep the binder material from becoming detached and to prevent the formation of wrinkles, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038.
As to claim 30, Kim et al. discloses a battery comprising a separator (see e.g. lithium battery and separator, Kim et al.: [0010]). Kim et al.’s separator comprises:
a substrate; and a coating, wherein the coating is formed on at least a portion of surface of the substrate (see e.g. substrate and coating layer, which coats and thereby is formed on at least a portion of the substrate, Kim et al.: [0040]),
and the coating comprises composite particles (see e.g. first organic particles 20 and inorganic particles 40, which collectively read on composite particles, Kim et al.: [0050] and Fig. 2) and a binder (see e.g. organic binder, Kim et al.: [0083]),
the composite particles form bulges on surface of the coating (i.e., particles 20/40 occupy space on the surface of the coating and can reasonably be said to form bulges), and the composite particles comprise polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0055], the organic particles 20 may be polymethyl methacrylate, which is a polyacrylate) and inorganic particles (see e.g. inorganic particles 40, Kim et al.: [0050]),
wherein the inorganic particle is present between at least two of the polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 2, inorganic particle 40 is present between two polyacrylate particles 20).
Kim et al. does not disclose the crosslinking degree or the mass swelling degree of the composite particles, and does not disclose a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1 and a ≥ 75%.
Kim et al. ‘680 teaches an analogous battery separator having an acryl-based binder polymer (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0027], [0084], and Fig. 1). Kim et al. ‘680 further teaches that crosslinked polymer chains provides resistance against an electrolyte solution, and that a crosslinking degree of 90% or more (which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of a ≥ 75%) is preferred to prevent delamination of the binder in an electrolyte (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘680: [0028]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. by setting the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles to be a ≥ 75%, because Kim et al. ‘680 teaches that this prevents delamination of the binder in an electrolyte.
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as applied above does not teach that a crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1.
Kim et al. ‘038 teaches an analogous binder for a battery separator having a coating layer (see e.g. porous film, Kim et al. ‘038: [0015]) comprising a binder polymer, and further teaches that it is preferable for binder polymer to have a degree of swelling in an electrolyte solution that is 200% or less, and that when the degree of swelling exceeds this range, the binder material may become detached from the electrode and wrinkles may appear (see e.g. Kim et al. ‘038: [0018]). Kim et al. ‘038’s degree of swelling range of 200% or less overlaps and thereby renders obvious the range 75% or less. As such, the combined teachings of Kim et al. ‘038 with Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 as set forth above would render obvious the condition a/b ≥ 1, since Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 teaches a ≥ 75% and a value of 75% or less for b would satisfy the relationship a/b ≥ 1.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 by setting the degree of swelling to be 75% or less, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038, such that the crosslinking degree a of the composite particles and mass swelling degree b thereof in an electrolyte satisfy a/b ≥ 1. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to keep the binder material from becoming detached and to prevent the formation of wrinkles, as taught by Kim et al. ‘038.
As to claim 31, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the battery according to claim 30, as set forth in the rejection of claim 30 above. The battery of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 is, by definition, configured to supply electrical energy, and therefore the battery taught by Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 as applied above reads on the instantly-claimed electric apparatus.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2021/0234233).
As to claim 13, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, wherein percentage of the inorganic particles in the composite particles ranges from about 80wt%-60wt% (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0016]), which lies outside the claimed range of 1wt%–50wt%.
Fan et al., also working on coating layers for battery separators, teaches a separator having an analogous coating layer comprising composite particles that comprises inorganic particles and organic particles (see e.g. first inorganic particles 4 and first polymer binder 3, Fan et al.: [0024] and Fig. 1) wherein the percentage of the inorganic particles in the composite particles is 6wt%-89wt% (see e.g. Fan et al.: [0007], the coating layer comprises first polymer and first inorganic particles in a ratio of 10-80:85-5, which means that the inorganic particles are present in a weight percentage of 5/(80+5) to 85/(10+85) = 6%-89%), which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1wt%–50wt%.
Absent any evidence of the criticality of the instantly-claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 by selecting the inorganic particles and organic particles to be present such that a percentage of the inorganic particles in the composite particles is 1wt%–50wt%, because Fan et al. teaches that this is a functionally equivalent composition that serves the same intended purpose of providing a coating layer for a battery separator.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 2023/0079279).
As to claim 16, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, including polyacrylate particles (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0055], organic particles 20 may be polymethyl methacrylate, which is a polyacrylate), but the prior art does not specify that the polyacrylate particles have a glass transition temperature of 20°C–80°C.
Taguchi et al., also working in the field of battery separator materials, teaches that when the glass transition temperature of an adhesive polymer in a laminate is in the range of 10°C–90°C, the low-temperature adhesiveness and blocking resistance of said laminate is improved (see e.g. Taguchi et al.: [0017]). This range overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 20°C–80°C.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to select polyacrylate particles in the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 such that the polyacrylate particles have a glass transition temperature of 20°C–80°C. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Taguchi et al. teaches that selecting a glass transition temperature in this range improves the low-temperature adhesiveness and blocking resistance of the material.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuckerbrod et al. (US 5,336,573).
As to claim 19, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, including a binder that comprises a binder polymer (see e.g. organic binder polymer, Kim et al.: [0083]), but does not disclose a binder that comprises a plasticizer.
Zuckerbrod et al., also working in the field of materials for battery separators, teaches that when a plasticizer is added to a battery separator, it may aid in imparting flexibility to the material (see e.g. Zuckerbrod et al., col. 3, lines 21-36 and col. 7, lines 18-21).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention, motivated by a need to improve the flexibility of the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038, would therefore have found it obvious to modify Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038’s separator by adding the plasticizer taught by Zuckerbrod et al. to the binder polymer.
As to claim 21, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680, Kim et al. ‘038, and Zuckerbrod et al. teaches the separator according to claim 19, wherein the plasticizer comprises at least one of glycerol C4-C10 alkyl diether, glycerol C4-C10 alkyl monoether, glycerol C4-C10 carboxylic acid monoester, glycerol C4-C10 carboxylic acid diester, propylene glycol C4-C10 alkyl monoether, and glycerol (see e.g. glycerol, Zuckerbrod et al.: col. 7, lines 4-10).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392).
As to claim 22, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 teaches the separator according to claim 1, including a binder (see e.g. organic binder, Kim et al.: [0083]), but does not teach that a mass ratio of the composite particles to a solid content in the binder is (80–90):(5–20).
Shin et al. teaches an analogous separator comprising a coating layer that comprises inorganic particles and a binder (see e.g. Shin et al.: [0034]-[0036]), wherein the binder is preferably present in an amount of 1 wt% to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the solid content of the mixture (see e.g. Shin et al.: [0095]), which lies within and thereby anticipates the mass ratio range of (80–90):(5–20).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘680 and Kim et al. ‘038 by setting the mass ratio of the composite particles to a solid content in the binder to be (80–90):(5–20). This is because Shin et al. teaches that such a binder content is preferable for a separator coating mixture. Additionally, the use of a binder having a mass ratio of the composite particles to a solid content in the binder of (80–90):(5–20) would fail to produce any new benefit or effect that would not have been obvious to said artisan, and would not alter the function of the separator in a patentably distinct manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record is Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680) and Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), which teaches the separator according to claim 4, as set forth above. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest the additional limitation of a separator wherein 0.01 μm ≤ Dv50 of the first agglomerate ≤ Dv10 of the composite particles.
Claim 20 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.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art of record is Kim et al. (US 2021/0005858) in view of Kim et al. ‘680 (US 2014/0186680),Kim et al. ‘038 (KR 20070034038A, as read via machine translation), and Zuckerbrod et al. (US 5,336,573), which teaches the separator according to claim 19, wherein the binder polymer comprises a copolymer formed by at least one of the following first monomers, comprising acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, tert-butyl methacrylate, isobornyl methacrylate, methylol acrylamide, acrylamide, styrene, and acrylonitrile (see e.g. polymethacrylate, which reads on methyl methacrylate, Kim et al.: [0083]).
However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a binder polymer comprising second monomers, third monomers, and a reactive dispersant, wherein second monomers comprise C4-C22 alkyl acrylate, isobutyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate, tert-butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (isooctyl), cyclohexyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, isobutyl methacrylate, 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, n-hexyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate, benzyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, ethyl ethylideneurea methacrylate, dicyclopentene ethoxy methacrylate, tetrahydrofuryl methacrylate, trifluoroethyl methacrylate, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate, diethylaminoethyl methacrylate, and acryl methacrylate;
third monomers comprise 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, glycidyl acrylate, glycidyl methacrylate, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate, diethylaminoethyl methacrylate, vinyltrimethoxysilane, vinyltriethoxysilane, vinyltriisopropoxysilane, 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, N-methylolacrylamide, N-butoxymethyl(meth)acrylamide, diacetoneacrylamide, ethyl methacrylate acetoacetate, divinylbenzene, epoxy resin with an epoxy value of 0.35–0.50, and divinylbenzene; and
reactive dispersants comprise polyvinyl alcohol, polypropyl alcohol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, and polyvinyl acid alcohol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights