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 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“by coating at least one or both sides” should read “by coating at least one or both sides”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian (CN 114552126 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
An electrode assembly including an anode, a cathode, and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode ([1-2] lithium-ion battery having a battery separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode);
A case accommodating the electrode assembly ([1-2] battery is contained in a housing and is known in the art); and
An electrolyte filling the case ([8] electrolyte in the battery), wherein
The separator includes a coating layer on at least one of both sides of the separator ([5-8] a case film with a boron nitride coating layer applied on at least one surface of the base film), and
The coating layer includes boron nitride nanotubes ([14] Boron nitride can be a boron nitride nanotube).
Regarding claim 10, Tian discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
Mixing boron nitride nanotubes with a solvent to form a coating solution ([14,17] preparation method of mixing boron nitride with a solvent);
Forming a coating layer by coating at least one of both sides of a separator with the coating solution ([17] coating the boron nitride on the surface of the separator);
Forming an electrode assembly by placing an anode and cathode respectively on both sides of the separator on which the coating layer is formed ([1-2] lithium-ion battery having a battery separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode);
Placing the electrode assembly in a case and filling the case with an electrolyte ([1-2] battery is contained in a housing and is known in the art and would be anticipated for lithium-ion batteries used in mobile phones and other electrical equipment; [8] electrolyte in the battery).
Regarding claim 12, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tian further discloses wherein after forming the coating layer, the method further comprises drying the coating layer ([17]) surface of the base film is dried after coating).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Tian (CN 114552126 A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ono et al. (US 2024/0222793 A1-having priority date of 10/6/2021).
Regarding claim 2, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tian discloses wherein the separator comprises a base material of one or more polyethylene, polypropylene, PVDF-hexafluoropropylene, aramid, and polyimide ([9]) and discloses wherein the coating comprises boron nitride nanotubes ([14]). The instant invention discloses wherein the separator comprises a base material such as polypropylene as well as other material ([0062]) and a boron nitride coating. Thus, it appears that the instant invention and the prior art comprise the same/similar separator, however, Tian is silent with respect to the conductivity of the separator at different temperature.
Ono discloses a separator for a battery that comprises an ionic conductivity of 1.0 mS/cm or more ([0015]) to improve conductivity and cycle characteristics of the battery ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the conductivity of the separator to have an ionic conductivity of 1.0 mS/cm or more to improve the conductivity of the battery as taught by Ono. Ono is used to teach a relative range for the ionic conductivity. While Tian and Ono fail to teach a specific conductivity value at different temperatures as claimed, the separator of Tian is made of the same materials as the instant application as thus the ionic conductivity at 60 °C and -10 °C would be inherent as the separator of Tian discloses the same material and would be expected to function similarly. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the ionic conductivity at 60 °C and -10 °C, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the separator disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As separator taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1 and 2, the separator inherently teaches the ionic conductivity at 60 °C and -10 °C. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Tian (CN 114552126 A) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0005861 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 10. Tian is silent with respect to wherein an average surface roughness of the coating layer is 50 nm to 2 micrometers.
Hong discloses a separator for a rechargeable battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of separators for batteries. Hong discloses wherein a separator 10 has a porous substate 20 and a coating layer 30 provided on one or both sides of the porous substate ([0031; Figure 1). Hong further discloses wherein the coating layer has a surface roughness of 150 nm to 300 nm in order to anchor the coating layer of the separator and improve the interfacial adhesion of the separator and electrode and improve the air permeability of the separator ([0072,0165]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the coating layer of Tian to include a surface roughness of 150-300 nm as taught by Hong in order to improve the interfacial adhesion of the separator and improve the air permeability of the separator. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 3 and 15 as the range overlaps with the claimed range. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 114552126 A) as applied to claim 1 and 10 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0166108 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tian is silent with respect to an aspect ratio of the boron nitride nanotubes being 20 to 6000.
Kim discloses a separator for secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Kim discloses wherein the separator can have boron nitride nanotubes provided wherein the nanotubes have an aspect ratio in the range of 10 to 50000 in order to uniformly embed in the porous film to contribute to the improvement of the thermal stability, mechanical strength and electric insulation of the separator ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size/shape of the boron nitride nanotubes of Tian to include an aspect ratio between 10 and 5000 as taught by Kim in order to improve the thermal stability, mechanical strength, and electric insulation of the separator as taught by Kim. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 4. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tian is silent with respect to wherein the coating solution comprises about 0.01 wt% to about 10 wt% of the boron nitride nanotubes.
Kim discloses a separator for secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Kim discloses wherein the separator can have boron nitride nanotubes provided wherein the nanotubes can be provided within 2 to 90 parts by weight of boron nitride based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer/separator in order to improve the thermal stability, mechanical strength and electrical insulation of the separator ([0017, 0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of boron nitride nanotubes provided in the coating layer to be between 2 and 90 parts by weight of the coating layer as taught by Kim in order to improve the thermal stability, mechanical strength and electrical insulation of the separator absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality. The modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 13 as obvious as a skilled artisan can provide the boron nitride nanotubes within a weight percentage of 2 to 90 parts by weight of the coating solution for the benefits taught by Kim and thus would overlap with the claimed range. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 114552126 A) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Lee (KR 102105364 B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 10. Tian is silent with respect to wherein the boron nitride nanotubes are surface treated to have hydrophilic or hydrophobic properties.
Lee discloses a method of manufacturing hydrophilic surface modified boron nitride and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonable pertinent to surface treatment of boron nitride. Lee discloses wherein a surface treatment of boron nitride can use a phenyl radical and a hydroxy group such as a hydroxy benzene group ([26,34-35]) to improve the hydrophilic surface and improve the dispersed boron nitride to form a pi-pi bond.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the surface treatment of Lee to the boron nitride coating layer of Tian such that the boron nitride nanotubes are surface treated to have hydrophobic or hydrophilic properties as taught by Lee in order to improve the dispersed boron nitride within the separator. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 5 and 14 as the boron nitride nanotubes can be surface treated to have hydrophilicity of boron nitride as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Lee further discloses wherein the boron nitride nanotubes which are surface treated further include a first layer located on at least a portion of each of the boron nitride nanotubes, the first layer includes a hydroxy phenyl group and forms a pi bond with the boron nitride nanotubes (Lee [26-35] see modification of claim 5 having a phenyl group radical for modify the boron nitride).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Lee further discloses wherein the boron nitride nanotubes which are surface treated have hydrophilic properties (see modification of claim 5; Lee [26-35]).
Regarding claim 8, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Tian is silent with respect to wherein the boron nitride nanotubes are surface treated to include a second layer on the first layer, and the second layer includes an amine group or a thiol group as a hydrocarbon group, and the boron nitride nanotubes which are surface treated have the hydrophobicity.
Lee discloses a method of manufacturing hydrophilic surface modified boron nitride and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonable pertinent to surface treatment of boron nitride. Lee discloses wherein a surface treatment of boron nitride use a hydroxy group or an amine group ([26,34-35]) to improve the hydrophilic surface and improve the dispersed boron nitride. Lee discloses the use of the amine group can affect the hydrophobicity of boron nitride as boron nitride has hydrophobicity properties ([25,35]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate a second surface treatment of an amine group onto the first layer (hydroxy phenyl group) as disclosed by Lee to improve the hydrophilic properties of the coating layer as the boron nitride contains hydrophobic properties as taught by Lee in order to improve the dispersed boron nitride within the separator. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 8 as the boron nitride nanotubes can be surface treated to have hydrophilic properties on the boron nitride layer as boron nitride contains hydrophobic properties as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tian is silent with respect to wherein at least some of the boron nitride nanotubes are attached to a separator at an angle of 1-30.
Lee discloses a method of manufacturing hydrophilic surface modified boron nitride and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonable pertinent to surface treatment of boron nitride. Lee discloses wherein a surface treatment of boron nitride uses a hydroxy group or an amine group ([26,34-35]) to improve the hydrophilic surface and improve the dispersed boron nitride and is provided at a contact angle of 29.8 degrees ([73]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the contact angle of boron nitride nanotubes to have an angle of 29.8 degrees after surface modification to improve the hydrophilicity of the separator as taught by Lee. The resulting modification would render the claim limitations of claim 9 as obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (CN 114552126 A) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Ramasubramanian et al. (US 2014/0272547 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tian discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tian discloses wherein coating of coating layer onto the separator is done, however, is silent with respect to the method of coating being electrostatic spraying or mechanical spraying.
Ramasubramanian discloses a separator for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Ramasubramanian discloses wherein a separator/ separator materials can be applied via electrostatic spray deposition, spray coating, screen printing, dip coating as well as other forms of applying a layer onto a substrate ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the coating method of Tian to use a coating method discloses by Ramasubramanian such as electrostatic spray deposition or mechanical spray coating as a known method of depositing material upon a substate. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 11 as applying a coating layer can be done through the method disclosed by Ramasubramanian as an equivalent and known process for applying a coating layer and the separator would be expected to function similarly when the method of electrostatic spraying/ mechanical spraying is done to add the coating layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ergen et al. (US 2018/0159180 A1)-discloses high temperature Li-ion battery cells utilizing boron nitride aerogels and boron nitride nanotubes.
Dushatinski et al. (US 2019/0123324 A1)- discloses nano porous BNNT composites with thermal switching for advanced batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights