DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/02/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 04/30/2024, 05/29/2025 havebeen placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 04/30/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 3 it is unclear based on what percentage of number functional group was calculated? What is 100%? Are these functional groups included other than carboxy and hydroxy functional groups?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by over US 2018/0351146 to Kong (Kong).
Regarding claim 1, Kong discloses a separator (Abstract), comprising: a separator substrate (Abstract) and a carbon layer on at least one surface of the separator substrate (Abstract, carbon nanotube layer comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes) wherein a functional group for improving surface infiltration is grafted onto a surface on a side, farther away from the separator substrate, of the carbon layer (para 50). Therefore, instant claim 1is anticipated by Kong.
Regarding claim 8, Kong discloses preparation method of the separator comprising: preparing the carbon layer on the at least one surface of the separator substrate (Abstract) and grafting the functional group for improving surface infiltration onto the surface on the side, farther away from the separator substrate, of the carbon layer (Fig. 8, steps S21, S22, para 50).
Regarding claim 11, Kong discloses herein the functional group for improving surface infiltration is grafted onto the surface on the side, farther away from the separator substrate, of the carbon layer via an oxygen plasma treatment.
Regarding claim 13, Kong discloses a sulfur battery (Abstract). Since Kong discloses charge/discharge cycles for the battery (para72) it is necessarily secondary battery.
Claims 1, 2 3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by over KR20200065828 to Ahn (Ahn, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ahn discloses a separator (functional composite separator, claim 1), comprising: a separator substrate (claim 1, porous substrate) and a carbon layer on at least one surface of the separator substrate (conductive material layer, claim 1, para 82 ) wherein a functional group such as hydroxy or carboxy (claim 2, re claim 2) for improving surface infiltration is grafted onto a surface on a side, farther away from the separator substrate, of the carbon layer (para 50). Therefore, instant claim 1is anticipated by Kong.
Regarding claim 3, Ahn discloses a percentage of the number of functional groups for improving surface infiltration is 6.96 % (Table, Example 2, 4.74 C=O and 2.22 % C-O). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Regarding claim 12 and 16, Ahn discloses secondary batteries and electric vehicles (para 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0351146 to Kong (Kong) as evidenced by CA 2506104 to Gauthier ( Gauthier).
Regarding claim 2, Kong discloses a treatment of the carbon nanotube layer with oxygen plasma, which inherently leads to formation of hydroxyl and carboxyl functional groups attached to the surface of the carbon nanotube layer as evidenced by Gauthier (claim 6).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0351146 to Kong (Kong) as evidenced by CN 110828745 A to He ( Abstract).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kong discloses batteries and electric vehicle (para 2). Therefore, battery pack and battery module are inherently present as evidenced by He (Abstract).MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Claims 4, 5, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0351146 to Kong (Kong).
Regarding claim 4, Kong discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Kong does not expressly disclose wherein a contact angle between the carbon layer, and an electrolyte is 64.9° to 110.6°. However,
since the criticality of positioning the functional groups between the carbon layer, and an electrolyte in the angle range from 64.9° to 110.6o- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Kong, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the functional group within claimed range as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Kong discloses wherein a thickness of the separator substrate layer is about 20 µm (para 26) and a thickness of the carbon layer is in a range from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm (para 29). Therefore, a thickness ratio of the above parameters is in a range from 20:0.1 to 20:0.3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness ratio of the separator substrate to the carbon layer of Kong based on thickness ranges disclosed by Kong in order to improve the specific capacity and cycling stability the battery employing such separator.
Regarding claim 6, Kong discloses wherein a thickness of the separator carbon layer in the range range from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm (i.e. 100nm to 300 nm, para 29). . It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness ratio of the separator carbon layer of Kong based on thickness ranges disclosed by Kong in order to improve the specific capacity and cycling stability the battery employing such separator.
Regarding claim 12, Kong discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 11 and incorporated therein. Kong does not expressly disclose wherein the oxygen plasma treatment is 1 minute to 50 minutes. However Kong teaches the oxygen plasma treatment wherein a flow rate of the oxygen plasma is about 30 seem to about 50 seem, a pressure of the etching device is about 5 Pa to about 15 Pa, a power of the etching device is about 15 W to about 25 W, and an etching time is about 5 seconds to about 15 seconds (claim 3). One skilled in art would easily recognize that the time of plasma treatment depends on different parameters provided above. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize condition of plasma treatment in order to treat the carbon layer in desired time in order to optimize the process.
Claims 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0351146 to Kong (Kong) in view of SUN XIN ET AL: "Advance in Using Plasma Technology for Modification or Fabrication of Carbon-Based Materials and Their Applications in Environmental, Material, and Energy Fields", ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS, vol. 31, no. 7, 10 November 2020 (2020-11-10) (provided in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Kong discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 8 and incorporated therein. Kong does not expressly disclose wherein the carbon layer is deposited on the surface of the separator substrate via a methane plasma treatment.
Sun Xin teaches different plasma technologies for fabrication of carbon-based materials. Sun Xin also teaches that use of plasma methane treatment is a routine method for production of carbon materials (para 3.4.1). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kong by using methane plasma as taught by Sun Xin, because The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious and would expand applicability of the method. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 10: since the criticality of plasma methane treatment within time range from 1 min to 30 min a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Kong especially in audience of critical parameters as power, flow rate etc. , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to place to find suitable time parameters for preparation desired carbon layer by routine experimentation as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
The closest prior art of record- US 2018/0351146, CN 110828745, CA 2506104, KR20200065828-fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights