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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 & 5 “BaTiO3” is duplicated & in lines 3 & 5 “SrTiO3” is duplicated & appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “50%-70%”, and the claim also recites “55%-65%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 3 recites the broad recitation “0.5%-3%”, and the claim also recites “0.6%-1.2%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 8 recites the broad recitation “0.5-200:1”, and the claim also recites “1-4:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 9 recites the broad recitation “0.5µm-2µm”, and the claim also recites “1µm-2µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 12 recites the broad recitation “≥2.5µm”, and the claim also recites “2.5µm-10µm” and the claim also recites “3µm-8µm” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation & claim 15 recites the broad recitation “0.01µm-1µm”, and the claim also recites “0.5µm-1µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 17 recites the broad recitation “0.3µm-5µm” and the claim also recites “1µm-2µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 19 recites the broad recitation “50 nm-400nm” and the claim also recites “100 nm-200 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 20 recites the broad recitation “2µm-15µm” and the claim also recites “5µm-8µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 13, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20120301774 A1, “Jiang”) in view of Min et al. (US 20200127265 A1, “Min”), Cha et al. (US 20140239239 A1, “Cha”) and Kong et al. (US 20190267595 A1, “Kong”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a separator, comprising: a substrate; and a coating (see abstract “separator” & “substrate” & see [0064] “coating layer”). Regarding the limitation wherein the coating is formed on at least part of a surface of the substrate, the coating comprises composite particles, first inorganic particles, and a binder, Jiang discloses a substrate, a coating, inorganic particles and a binder & a composite separator (see [0045] “porous substrate” & “coating” & “inorganic particles” & “binder”; see [0032] “inorganic particles” & “electronically insulative material”; see [0009] describes composite separator), but Jiang does not explicitly disclose composite particles.
Min teaches composite particles (see abstract “the separator comprises composite particles” & title “separator for lithium ion secondary battery”). Min teaches in [0047] “the particles (A), after lithium deintercalation, can carry out the same function as the inorganic particles of a heat resistant layer. Therefore, the separator according to the present disclosure can reduce the irreversible capacity generated during the initial charge, and can additionally function as a heat resistant layer of the separator”.
Jiang and Min are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separators (see Min title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composite particles, as suggested by Min (see abstract) into the separator of Jiang because doing so “reduce[s] the irreversible capacity generated during the initial charge, and can additionally function as a heat resistant layer of the separator” as suggested by Min (see [0047]).
Cha teaches composite particles (see [0078] “The first nanoparticles and the first polymer binder may form a composite, through a physical bond, for example, a van der Waals bond. The first nanoparticles and the first polymer binder may further form a composite via a chemical bond resulting from reaction between the polar functional group on the surfaces of the first nanoparticles and the polar functional group at a terminal of the first polymer binder.” & [0100]). Cha teaches “lithium battery may achieve good lifetime characteristics” (see [0167]). Cha teaches a battery separator (see [0087]).
Jiang and Cha are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery separator (see [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate composite as suggested by Cha (see [0078]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so improves the lifetime characteristics of the battery as suggested by Cha (see [0167]).
Regarding the limitation the composite particles form bulges on a surface of the coating, Jiang discloses in [0009] “inorganic particles which can conduct lithium ions are mixed with gel polymer electrolyte made from porous substrate and liquid electrolyte to obtain a composite separator”, but does not explicitly disclose composite particles form bulges.
Cha teaches in [0087] “separator” & “the first nanoparticles may be nonuniformly disposed in an interface between the first polymer binder and any of the above-listed other battery components”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “nonuniformly disposed in an interface” as suggested by Cha (see [0087]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so has “improved lifetime characteristics without deterioration” as suggested by Cha (see [0167]).
Regarding the limitation the composite particles comprise polyacrylate particles and ion-conducting particles, Jiang discloses in [0009] “inorganic particles which can conduct lithium ions are mixed with gel polymer electrolyte made from porous substrate and liquid electrolyte to obtain a composite separator”;
see [0031] “When the binder has ion conductivity, it can further improve the performance of the electrochemical device” which describes ion-conducting particles. Jiang does not explicitly disclose composite particles.
Cha teaches in [0078] “The first nanoparticles and the first polymer binder may form a composite, through a physical bond, for example, a van der Waals bond. The first nanoparticles and the first polymer binder may further form a composite via a chemical bond resulting from reaction between the polar functional group on the surfaces of the first nanoparticles and the polar functional group at a terminal of the first polymer binder.” which reads on ion-conducting particles & Cha teaches see [0100] “polyacrylate” & see [0172] “first nanoparticles may be inorganic particles”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate nanoparticles and the binder form a composite as suggested by Cha (see [0078]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so improves the lifetime characteristics of the battery as suggested by Cha (see [0167]).
Regarding the limitation and the ion-conducting particle is present between at least two of the polyacrylate particles, Jiang discloses in [0009] “inorganic particles” & describes in abstract “binder” & “inorganic particles” in the active layer. Jiang does not explicitly disclose the ion-conducting particle is present between at least two of the polyacrylate particles.
Cha teaches in [0100] “the first nanoparticles may include” & “polyacrylate” & see [0110] “the first polymer binder may include” & “polyacrylate” &
see [0172] “first nanoparticles may be inorganic particles” & see [0076] “the first nanoparticles may have a polar functional group on the particle surfaces thereof. The polar functional group may form any of a variety of bonds, for example, a hydrogen bond or a covalent bond, with the first polymer binder.” & see [0087] “the first nanoparticles may be disposed in an interface between the first polymer binder and other battery components”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the nanoparticle with the polar functional group bonding with the polymer binder as suggested by Cha (see [0076]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so “improve[s] the lifetime characteristics without deterioration,” as suggested by Cha (see [0167]).
Regarding the limitation wherein a mass ratio of the first inorganic particles to the ion-conducting particles is 1:0.007-0.06, Jian discloses in [0039] “mixture contains 60-85 wt% of inorganic particles” & in [0065] “2.0 wt% of binder”, but Jiang does not explicitly disclose mass ratio of the particles is 1:0.007-0.06.
Kong teaches inorganic particles mass % and mass % of binder (see [0035] “mass percentage of the inorganic particles & “99.9 wt%” & see [0035] “content of the binder” & see example 9 in [0084] “inorganic particles” & “binder” & “mass ratio of 99:1” which describes 0.99-0.01.
The amount of inorganic particles & ion-conducting particles taught by Kong is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein based on mass of the coating, a percentage of the first inorganic particles is 60-85 wt% (see [0039] “mixture contains 60-85% of inorganic particles”) which overlaps the claimed range of 50-70%.
Jiang discloses a range of 60-85 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50-70%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein based on the mass of the coating, a percentage of the ion-conducting particles is 2% (see [0065] “2.0 wt% of binder”) which lies within the claimed range of 0.5%-3%. Jiang does not explicitly disclose mass%.
Kong teaches mass% (see [0035] “binder” & see [0084] “inorganic particles” & “binder” & “mass ratio of 99:1” & 1 lies within the claimed range of 0.5%-3% & “0.6%-1.2%).
The amount of ion-conducting particles disclosed by Jiang and taught by Kong is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a dielectric constant of the ion-conducting particles is not less than 5 (see [0009] “inorganic particles which can conduct lithium ions”; see [0027] “the inorganic particle is preferably electronically insulative material has a dielectric constant no less than 5”), preferably not less than 10 (see [0031] “dielectric constant of the binder” & “preferably no less than 10”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the ion-conducting particles comprise at least one of second inorganic particles, as required by claim 5 and further discloses wherein the second inorganic particles comprise SnO2 MgO, CaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Al2O3, TiO2, SiO2, (see [0032] “it is preferable to use inorganic particles having ion conductivity as high as possible, because such inorganic particles can improve the ion conductivity and performance of the electrochemical device” & “Non-limiting examples of the inorganic particles is an electronically insulative material selected from a group consisting of SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, TiO2, ZnO, MgO, ZrO2 and SnO2”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein the composite particles comprise ion-conducting particles of primary particle morphology, Jiang does not explicitly disclose morphology, however, a skilled artisan would recognize morphology is an inherent property of the separator particle material.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein Dv50 of the first inorganic particles is 0.1-2µm (see [0019] “particle size of the inorganic particle is 0.1-2 µm”) which overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.5µm-2µm & 1µm -2µm.
Jiang discloses a range of 0.1-2 µm, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0.5µm - 2µm & 1µm - 2µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a mass of the first inorganic particles is 50 wt% (see [0068] describes “50 wt% Al2O3 powder” which reads on wt% of inorganic particles & lies within the claimed range of 30-70). Jiang does not explicitly disclose mass ratio (5-50) nor composite particles.
Cha teaches composite particles & mass % (see [0078] “first nanoparticles and the first polymer binder may form a composite” & [0100] “polyacrylate” & see [0142] “coupling agent may be about 5 wt% or less” & “on a dry weight basis based on the total weight of the reactants” & “coupling agent used to prepare the binder composition” which overlaps the claimed range at the end point of 5).
Cha teaches a range of 5, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 5-50. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite particles comprise a first agglomerate, and the first agglomerate comprises at least two ion-conducting particles, wherein the first agglomerate is present on a surface of the bulge.
Cha teaches nonuniformly disposed in an interface which describes on bulges on a surface (see [0087] “separator” & “the first nanoparticles may be nonuniformly disposed in an interface between the first polymer binder and any of the above-listed other battery components.” & see [0084] “the first nanoparticles may be dispersed in the form of secondary particles as agglomerates of a plurality of first nanoparticles in the matrix of the first polymer binder.”). Cha teaches in [0125] “to suppress expansion of an electrode”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “nanoparticles may be nonuniformly disposed in an interface” as suggested by Cha (see [0087]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so “suppress[es] expansion of an electrode” as suggested by Cha (see [0125]).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses polyacrylate particles (see [0062] “binder 106 is coupling agent” & “polyacrylate”), but Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite particles comprise a second agglomerate, and the second agglomerate comprises at least two of the polyacrylate particles.
Cha teaches agglomerates (see [0087] “separator” & “the first nanoparticles may be nonuniformly disposed in an interface between the first polymer binder and any of the above-listed other battery components” & see [0084] “the first nanoparticles may be dispersed in the form of secondary particles as agglomerates of a plurality of first nanoparticles in the matrix of the first polymer binder.”). Cha teaches in [0125] “to suppress expansion of an electrode”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate agglomerates as suggested by Cha (see [0084]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so “suppress[es] expansion of an electrode” as suggested by Cha (see [0125]).
Regarding claim 18, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses polyacrylate particles (see [0062] “binder 106 is coupling agent” & “polyacrylate” which reads on polyacrylate particles). Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the polyacrylate particles comprise polyacrylate particles of primary particle morphology, however, a skilled artisan would recognize morphology is an inherent property of the particle material.
Regarding claim 21, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses a battery (see abstract “lithium secondary battery”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20120301774 A1, “Jiang”) in view of Min et al. (US 20200127265 A1, “Min”), Cha et al. (US 20140239239 A1, “Cha”) and Kong et al. (US 20190267595 A1, “Kong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (WO 2021163987 A1, “Zhang”, US 20230089526 A1 used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the second inorganic particles comprise SnO2 MgO, CaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Al2O3, TiO2, SiO2, (see [0032] “it is preferable to use inorganic particles having ion conductivity as high as possible, because such inorganic particles can improve the ion conductivity and performance of the electrochemical device” & “Non-limiting examples of the inorganic particles is an electronically insulative material selected from a group consisting of SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, TiO2, ZnO, MgO, ZrO2 and SnO2”). Jiang does not explicitly disclose HfO2, CeO2, NiO, Y2O3, SiC, BaSO4, nor Mg(OH)2.
Zhang teaches HfO2, CeO2, NiO, Y2O3, SiC, BaSO4, and Mg(OH)2 (see [0055] “the separator may further include a porous layer on the surface, and the porous layer is disposed on at least one surface of the separator. The porous layer includes inorganic particles and a binder. The inorganic particles are selected from the group consisting of alumina (Al2O3), silica (SiO2), magnesia (MgO), titania (TiO2), hafnium dioxide (HfO2), stannic oxide (SnO2), cerium dioxide (CeO2), nickel oxide (NiO), zinc oxide (ZnO), calcium oxide (CaO), zirconia (ZrO2), yttria (Y2O3), silicon carbide (SiC), eboehmite, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide and barium sulfate, or a combination of more than one thereof”). Zhang teaches “improves the safety performance of the electrochemical device” (see abstract”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate HfO2, CeO2, NiO, Y2O3, SiC, BaSO4, Mg(OH)2 as suggested by Zhang (see [0055]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so “improves the safety performance of the electrochemical device”, as suggested by Zhang (see abstract).
Claims 8, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20120301774 A1, “Jiang”) in view of Min et al. (US 20200127265 A1, “Min”), Cha et al. (US 20140239239 A1, “Cha”) and Kong et al. (US 20190267595 A1, “Kong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 20210234233 A1, “Fan”).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses “particle size of the inorganic particle is 0.1-2µm” (see [0019]) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-200 & 1-4. Jiang does not explicitly disclose Dv50 of the ion-conducting particles of the primary morphology is 1 as required by the claimed limitation.
Fan teaches Dv50 & ratio (see [0031] “Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis” & see [0032] “0.3×Dv50 of the first polymer binder ≤ Dv50 of the first inorganic particles ≤ 0.7×Dv50 of the first polymer binder” in Formula 4 & Fan teaches Table 1 “ratio of Dv50 of first inorganic particles to Dv50 of first polymer binder” & see [0103] Example 16 is 0.7. Fan teaches improved rating performance (see Table 1 in [0103]).
Jiang and Fan are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separator (see Fan title).
The amount of ion-conducting particle taught by Fan is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses “the particle size of the inorganic particles is 0.1-2µm” (see [0019]), but Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the composite particles is greater than Dv50 of the first inorganic particles.
Fan teaches composite particles Dv50 (see [0024] “core-shell structured particles of the first polymer binder can be obtained by an emulsion polymerization method commonly used in the art” which reads on composite particles & see Example 1 in [0079] “Dv50 of the aluminum oxide particles was 150 nm” which is equivalent to 0.15 µm). Fan teaches in [0104] “By comparing examples 1-19 and comparative examples 1-2, it is clear that by using the first inorganic particles in the first coating, the dry-pressure bonding force between the separator and the positive/negative electrode plates is increased, or the rate performance is significantly improved”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dv50 of the composite particles is 150 nm (equivalent to 0.15 µm) as suggested by Fan (see [0079] in example 1) which reads on Dv50 of the composite particle (taught by Fan [0079] example 1) is greater than Dv50 of the first inorganic particle disclosed by Jiang (see [0019] “0.1 um”) because doing so improves the rate performance, as suggested by Fan (see [0104]).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the composite particles is ≥ 2.5μm, preferably 2.5μm–10μm, more preferably 3μm–8μm.
Fan teaches Dv50 of the composite particles increases the rating performance of the battery (see [0085] “Dv50 of the aluminum oxide particles was 2500 nm (equivalent to 2.5 µm) & see [0103] Table 1 describes rating performance increased (rating performance of 87.5%) for Example 7 with the larger Dv50 of the aluminum oxide particles of 2500 nm from Example 1 with Dv50 of the aluminum oxide particles 150 nm (rating performance of 75.1%).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dv50 of the composite particles is 2.5 µm as suggested by Fan (see [0085] “2500 nm” equivalent to 2.5 µm) into the separator of Jiang because doing so improves the rating performance of the battery as suggested by Fan (see Table 1 in [0103]).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the ion-conducting particles of the primary particle morphology is 0.01μm–1μm, preferably 0.5μm–1μm, however, morphology is an inherent property of the particle material.
Fan teaches Dv50 (see [0031] “wherein Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis” & see [0032] & see Table 1 in [0103] Example 1 describes Dv50 first polymer binder (nm) = 300 nm (equivalent to 0.3 µm) which lies within the first claimed range of 0.01 µm - 1µm as required by claim 15. Fan further teaches in Table 1 in [0103] Example 2 Dv50 of first polymer binder (nm) = 600 (equivalent to 0.6 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 µm-1µm. Fan teaches improved rating performance from example 1 (see Table 1 [0103] “75.1%) to example 2 (see Table 1 [0103] “76.2”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dv50 of 0.3 µm (see Fan Table 1 [0103] Example 1 “300 nm” equivalent to 0.3 µm) which lies within the claimed range and to incorporate 0.6 µm (see Fan Table 1 [0103] Example 2 “600 nm” equivalent to 0.6 µm which lies within the second claimed range) into the battery of Jiang because doing so improves the rating performance as suggested by Fan (see Table 1 Example 1 & Example 2 in [0103]).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the second agglomerate is 0.3μm–5μm, preferably 1μm–2μm.
Fan teaches Dv50 (see [0082] Example 4 “Dv50 of the first polymer binder was 1600 nm” (equivalent to 1.6 µm) which lies within the claimed ranges of 0.3 µm-5µm & 1µm-2µm). Fan teaches in Table 1 in [0103] Example 4 has improved rating performance of 78.8%.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 1600 nm (equivalent to 1.6 µm) as suggested by Fan into the separator of Jiang because doing so improves the rating performance, as suggested by Fan see [0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 18 and further discloses polyacrylate particles (see [0062] “binder 106 is coupling agent” & “polyacrylate” which reads on polyacrylate particles). Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles of secondary particle morphology is 2μm–15μm, preferably 5μm–8μm.
Fan teaches Dv50 of the binder particles (see [0024] & [0032] “DV50 of the fist polymer binder” & see Table 1 in [0103] & see [0085] Example 7 describes “Dv50 of the first polymer binder was 5000 nm” (equivalent to 5 µm) which lies within the first claimed range of 2µm -15µm and overlaps at an end point of the second claimed range 5µm-8µm of claim 20. Fan teaches improved rating performance of the battery (see Table 1 in [0103] Example 1 “75.1%” and Example 7 “87.5%”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dv50 of 5000 nm (equivalent to 5 µm) as suggested by Fan (see Table 1 & [0085]) into the separator of Jiang because doing so improves the rating performance of the battery as suggested by Fan (see Table 1 in [0103]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20120301774 A1, “Jiang”) in view of Min et al. (US 20200127265 A1, “Min”), Cha et al. (US 20140239239 A1, “Cha”) and Kong et al. (US 20190267595 A1, “Kong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 20180287141 A1, “Kurita”).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.01 μm ≤ Dv50 of the first agglomerate ≤ Dv10 of the composite particles.
Cha teaches agglomerates (see [0084] & [0088] “first nanoparticles” & “average particle diameter of about 100 nm or less” which is equivalent to 0.1 µm which lies within the claimed range of 0.01 µm ≤ Dv50 of the first agglomerate.
Cha teaches a range of 100 nm or less (equivalent to 0.1 µm or less), which lies within the claimed range of 0.01 µm ≤ Dv50. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Kurita teaches Dv10 (see [0041] “in the particles (B), a 10% particle diameter (Dv10) in the volume-based cumulative particle size distribution is preferably 1 μm or more” & see [0113] “carbon nanotubes” which reads on nanoparticles & “10 nm or more and 15 nm or less” (equivalent to 0.01 µm to 0.015 µm) which lies within the claimed range).
Jiang and Kurita are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separator for battery (see [0111]).
Kurita teaches a range of 10 nm or more and 15 nm or less (equivalent to 0.01 µm to 0.015 µm), which lies within the claimed range of 0.01 µm ≤ Dv10. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20120301774 A1, “Jiang”) in view of Min et al. (US 20200127265 A1, “Min”), Cha et al. (US 20140239239 A1, “Cha”) and Kong et al. (US 20190267595 A1, “Kong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 20210234233 A1, “Fan”) and Kurita et al. (US 20180287141 A1, “Kurita”).
Regarding claim 19, Jiang discloses the separator of claim 18 and further discloses polyacrylate particles (see [0062] “binder 106 is coupling agent” & “polyacrylate” which reads on polyacrylate particles), but Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein Dv50 of the polyacrylate particles of primary particle morphology is 50nm–400nm, preferably 100nm–200nm.
Fan teaches Dv50 (see [0032] “Dv50 of the first polymer binder” & see Table 1 in [0103] & [0079] describes DV50 of the first polymer binder & Example 1 describes “DV50 of the first polymer binder was 300 nm” which lies within the claimed range of 50 nm -400 nm.
Kurita teaches in [0031] “a lower limit of a 50% particle diameter (Dn50) in a number-based cumulative particle size distribution of primary particles” & “and still further preferably 100 nm” which overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm -200 nm.
Kurita teaches a range of 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 nm -200 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights