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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3, the claim seems to be lacking an “and” between PMMA and PEO. It is otherwise grammatically awkward.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, lines 7-8, “wherein the binder is selected from a g5roup consisting of” should read “wherein the binder is selected from a group consisting of”
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 13-14 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.
Claims 13 and 20 recite the limitation “where M is a transition metal” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, neither claim defines the variable “M” or recites a chemical formula containing a variable “M”. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed cathode active material groups are limited by the requirement that M be a transition metal. Accordingly, the scope of claims 13 and 20 are indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation “where M is a transitional metal” is interpreted as referring to the transition metal components of the recited layered oxide, olivine-type oxide, monoclinic-type oxide, and spinel-type oxide cathode active materials to be consistent with paragraph [0043] of the specification.
Claim 14 contains the trademark/trade name “Super P”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a conductive additive material in claim 14 and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2022/0115689 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0014511 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a battery ([0039]) that comprises C cathode electrodes, A anode electrodes, and S separators, where C, A, and S are integers greater than 0 (battery contains a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator; [0039]);
Wherein each of the S separators includes a separator layer (separator contains a porous substrate; [0004]); and
A first active solid coating layer arranged on the separator layer (separator has a functional film layer that is provided on a surface of the porous substrate; [0004]).
Liu does not, however, expressly disclose that the separator includes a distinct protective layer. Although Liu teaches that particles of the functional film layer may be coated with a polymer coating layer ([0062]), the polymer coating is provided on the individual particles and is not disclosed as a distinct coating layer of the separator.
Kim, disclosing a separator for a battery ([0001]), discloses a separator that comprises a porous substrate with a first coating layer arranged on its surface and a second coating layer arranged over the first coating layer (Figure 2; [0028] - [0032]). Kim further teaches that a separator including the first and second coating layers exhibits high thermal resistance, reduced moisture content, and enhanced electrode adhesion, which results in a battery with improved lifespan characteristics ([0035] – [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the separator of Liu to have included the second coating layer taught by Kim as the claimed protective layer. Doing so would result in a separator that improves the lifespan of the battery by enhancing properties of the separator including better thermal resistance, less moisture content, and increased electrode adhesion.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a functional film layer comprising inorganic particles corresponding to the claimed first active coating layer that is disposed on a surface of a porous substrate. Liu does not, however, expressly disclose the presence of a second functional film layer corresponding to the claimed second active coating layer.
Kim teaches that a first coating layer containing inorganic particles may be arranged on one or both surfaces of a porous substrate ([0028] – [0032]). Kim further teaches that the first coating layer reduces the possibility of a short circuit occurring between the positive and negative electrodes, resulting in improved battery stability ([0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the separator of Liu by providing the functional film disclosed by Liu on both surfaces of the porous substrate as taught by Kim, thereby providing the claimed second active coating layer. Doing so would have resulted in a separator with enhanced protection from short circuits between the positive electrode and the negative electrode due to the functional film layer being present on both surfaces of the porous substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a separator with a porous substrate corresponding to the claimed separator layer. Liu does not expressly state that the porous substrate is adjacent to the positive electrode plate. Liu does, however, disclose that the functional film layer may be provided on at least one surface of the porous substrate ([0056]) and that the functional film layer is arranged adjacent to the negative electrode plate ([0158]). Liu further teaches that the separator is arranged between the positive and negative electrode plates ([0131]). Therefore, in Liu’s disclosed embodiment in which the functional film layer is provided on the surface of the porous substrate facing the negative electrode plate, the opposite surface of the porous substrate is adjacent to the positive electrode plate. Accordingly, Liu discloses that the separator layer is arranged adjacent to the cathode.
Liu further discloses that the first solid coating layer is arranged adjacent to the separator layer (functional film layer is provided on surface of the porous substrate; [0004]).
As discussed with respect to claim 1, Kim teaches a second coating layer corresponding to the claimed protective layer, wherein the second coating layer is arranged on a first coating layer. Liu teaches that its functional film layer, corresponding to the claimed first active solid coating layer, is arranged adjacent to the negative electrode plate ([0158]). Therefore, when the separator of Liu is modified to include Kim’s second coating layer over Liu’s functional film layer as discussed in claim 1, the second coating layer is necessarily positioned between the functional film layer and the negative electrode plate. Accordingly, Liu in view of Kim discloses that the protective layer is arranged between the first active solid coating layer and the anode.
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 2. As discussed with respect to claim 2, Liu teaches a functional film layer corresponding to the claimed active coating layer and Kim teaches that a first coating layer may be arranged on both surfaces of a porous substrate corresponding to the claimed separator layer. It was also discussed above in claim 2 that it would have been obvious to incorporate Kim’s two-sided coating arrangement into Liu’s separator, thus providing first and second active coating layers on opposing surfaces of Liu’s porous substrate. As discussed with respect to claim 3, Liu teaches that the porous substrate is disposed adjacent to the positive electrode plate. Therefore, upon providing an additional functional film layer on the surface of the porous substrate facing the positive electrode plate, that additional functional film layer is necessarily positioned between the porous substrate and the positive electrode plate. Accordingly, Liu in view of Kim discloses both that the second active coating layer is arranged adjacent to the cathode and that the separator layer is arranged adjacent to the second coating layer.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a porous substrate that corresponds to the claimed separator layer having a functional film layer corresponding to the claimed first active solid coating layer arranged onto it. As further discussed in claim 1, Kim teaches that a second coating layer corresponding to the claimed protective layer can be disposed onto the first coating layer. As discussed with respect to claim 3, when Liu is modified with Kim the second coating layer is positioned between the functional film layer and the negative electrode plate. Accordingly, Liu in view of Kim discloses both that the first active solid coating layer is arranged adjacent to the separator layer and that the protective layer is arranged between the first active solid coating layer and the anode.
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. Liu further discloses that the first active solid coating layer comprises active solid particles that react with lithium (functional film layer contains inorganic particles that can react with lithium; [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 5. Liu further discloses that the active solid particles are selected from one of the claimed groups (inorganic particles in the functional film layer can be silicon (Si) or tin (Sn); [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 6. Liu further discloses that the inorganic particles in the functional film layer can have a volume average particle size (Dv50) in a range from 200 nm to 2,000 nm ([0061]). This particle size distribution range taught by Liu overlaps with the claimed particle size range of 10 nm to 1,000 nm. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Liu renders obvious having active solid particles with a particle size within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 5. Liu further discloses that the first active solid coating layer has a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 10 µm (functional film layer may have a thickness from 1 µm to 10 µm; [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kim further discloses that the protective layer comprises a polymer selected from one of the claimed groups (second coating layer contains a polyvinylidene fluoride-based binder; [0028] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. Liu further discloses that the separator layer is selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin-based separator layer, a cellulose separator layer, a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer, and a porous polyimide layer (porous substrate can be comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride; [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 11. Liu further discloses that the separator layer has a thickness that is in a range from 6 µm to 25 µm (porous substrate can have a thickness in a range of 5 µm to 25 µm; [0096]).
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. Liu further discloses that the anode electrode includes an anode active material consisting of lithium metal composites ([0057]),
The cathode electrode comprises a cathode active material in a range from 30% to 98% by weight (positive electrode active material can be 96% by mass in the positive electrode plate; [0155]), and
That the cathode active material consists of a layered oxide, where M is a transition metal ([0128]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 1. Liu further discloses that the cathode can comprise both a binder and conductive agent, whereby many of the claimed conductive additives, including carbon black, graphene, acetylene and graphite are disclosed as well as many of the claimed binder choices such as PTFE, PVDF, and CMC ([0129]). Liu further discloses that those skilled in the art would be able to make appropriate selections ([0129]), whereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to tailor the additives based on cost and availability and would have been motivated to tailor the amounts based upon the predicted/desired balance of conduction/binding and without detracting from the core function of the battery. The examiner notes that the courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” [MPEP 2144.05 (II)]. The examiner notes that the claimed ranges of the binder and the conductive additive are also expressly disclosed by Liu (2% for each; [0155]) and that the courts have held that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)].
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses a battery ([0039]) that comprises C cathode electrodes ([0039]);
A anode electrodes including anode active material that consists of a lithium metal composite ([0039] and [0057]); and
S separators where C, A, and S are integers greater than zero ([0039]),
Wherein each of the separators includes a separator layer (separator contains a porous substrate; [0004]); and
A first active solid coating layer arranged on the separator layer (separator has a functional film layer that is provided on a surface of the porous substrate; [0004]) that includes active solid particles selected from one of the claimed groups (inorganic particles in the functional film layer can be silicon (Si) or tin (Sn); [0060]).
Liu does not, however, expressly disclose that the separator includes a distinct protective layer. Although Liu teaches that particles of the functional film layer may be coated with a polymer coating layer ([0062]), the polymer coating is provided on the individual particles and is not disclosed as a distinct coating layer of the separator.
Kim, disclosing a separator for a battery ([0001]), discloses a separator that comprises a porous substrate with a first coating layer arranged on its surface and a second coating layer arranged over the first coating layer (Figure 2; [0028] - [0032]). Kim further teaches that a separator including the first and second coating layers exhibits high thermal resistance, reduced moisture content, and enhanced electrode adhesion, which results in a battery with improved lifespan characteristics ([0035] – [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the separator of Liu to have included the second coating layer taught by Kim as the claimed protective layer. Doing so would result in a separator that improves the lifespan of the battery by enhancing properties of the separator including better thermal resistance, less moisture content, and increased electrode adhesion.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 15. As discussed with respect to claim 2, Liu teaches a functional film layer corresponding to the claimed active coating layer and Kim teaches that a first coating layer may be arranged on both surfaces of a porous substrate corresponding to the claimed separator layer. It was also discussed above in claim 2 that it would have been obvious to incorporate Kim’s two-sided coating arrangement into Liu’s separator, thus providing first and second active coating layers on opposing surfaces of Liu’s porous substrate. As discussed with respect to claim 3, Liu teaches that the porous substrate is disposed adjacent to the positive electrode plate. Therefore, upon providing an additional functional film layer on the surface of the porous substrate facing the positive electrode plate, that additional functional film layer is necessarily positioned between the porous substrate and the positive electrode plate. Accordingly, Liu in view of Kim discloses that the separator further includes a second active coating layer arranged between the separator layer and the cathode.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 15. Liu further discloses that the inorganic particles in the functional film layer can have a volume average particle size (Dv50) in a range from 200 nm to 2,000 nm ([0061]). This particle size distribution range taught by Liu overlaps with the claimed particle size range of 10 nm to 1,000 nm. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Liu renders obvious having active solid particles with a particle size within the claimed range.
Liu also discloses that the first active solid coating layer has a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 10 µm (functional film layer may have a thickness from 1 µm to 10 µm; [0091]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 15. Liu further discloses that the separator layer is selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin-based separator layer, a cellulose separator layer, a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer, and a porous polyimide layer (porous substrate can be comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride; [0094]); and
That the separator layer has a thickness that is in a range from 6 µm to 25 µm (porous substrate can have a thickness in a range of 5 µm to 25 µm; [0096]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 15. Liu further discloses that the cathode electrode comprises a cathode active material in a range from 30% to 98% by weight (positive electrode active material can be 96% by mass in the positive electrode plate; [0155]), and
That the cathode active material consists of a layered oxide, where M is a transition metal ([0128]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2022/0115689 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0014511 A1) and optionally further in view of Ono et al (US 2024/0047829 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 9. Kim further discloses that both coating layers have a total coating thickness of between 5-40% of the separator as whole ([0066]) and that the porous substrate is 1-100 µm ([0070]). Kim even further teaches that tailoring the thickness of the coating layers provides good thermal resistance ([0066]). In view of the ranges disclosed above and the recognition that the coating layers can be tailored based on the desired thermal resistance, it would have been obvious, and within the purview of an ordinary skilled artisan, to have arrived at the claimed thickness of 1-5 µm. The examiner notes that the courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05 (II)].
Even though the foregoing appears to render obvious the claimed range, the examiner notes, for the sake of expediting prosecution, that Ono provides even further explicit guidance.
Ono, disclosing a secondary battery ([0008]), discloses a separator that teaches the use of a polymer containing adhesion layer that is disposed between a porous layer and a negative electrode ([0008], [0073], and [0081]). Ono further discloses both that the polymer in this adhesion layer can comprise PVDF ([0081]) and that the adhesion layer has a thickness of 2 µm ([0205]). Since the second coating layer of Kim and the adhesion layer of Ono are both similar in composition and in function, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second coating layer of Kim with the 2 µm thickness taught by Ono. Ono demonstrates that a 2 µm thickness is suitable for a PVDF-containing polymer layer disposed in a separator for the purpose of adhesion to an electrode. It would have been reasonable to expect that utilizing the same thickness for Kim’s analogous PVDF-containing second coating layer would successfully provide the same adhesion function. The resulting 2 µm thickness taught by Ono falls within the claimed 1 µm to 5 µm thickness range.
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Kim discloses the battery as discussed above in claim 15. Kim further discloses that the protective layer comprises a polymer selected from one of the claimed groups (second coating layer contains a polyvinylidene fluoride-based binder; [0028] and [0063]).
Kim also discloses that both coating layers have a total coating thickness of between 5-40% of the separator as whole ([0066]) and that the porous substrate is 1-100 µm ([0070]). Kim further teaches that tailoring the thickness of the coating layers provides good thermal resistance ([0066]). In view of the ranges disclosed above and the recognition that the coating layers can be tailored based on the desired thermal resistance, it would have been obvious, and within the purview of an ordinary skilled artisan, to have arrived at the claimed thickness of 1-5 µm. The examiner notes that the courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05 (II)].
Even though the foregoing appears to render obvious the claimed range, the examiner notes, for the sake of expediting prosecution, that Ono provides even further explicit guidance.
Ono, disclosing a secondary battery ([0008]), discloses a separator that teaches the use of a polymer containing adhesion layer that is disposed between a porous layer and a negative electrode ([0008], [0073], and [0081]). Ono further discloses both that the polymer in this adhesion layer can comprise PVDF ([0081]) and that the adhesion layer has a thickness of 2 µm ([0205]). Since the second coating layer of Kim and the adhesion layer of Ono are both similar in composition and in function, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second coating layer of Kim with the 2 µm thickness taught by Ono. Ono demonstrates that a 2 µm thickness is suitable for a PVDF-containing polymer layer disposed in a separator for the purpose of adhesion to an electrode. It would have been reasonable to expect that utilizing the same thickness for Kim’s analogous PVDF-containing second coating layer would successfully provide the same adhesion function. The resulting 2 µm thickness taught by Ono falls within the claimed 1 µm to 5 µm thickness range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/J.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights