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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 June 2024 and 05 February 2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and have/has been considered.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 20240332732 A1 unless otherwise stated. Additionally, any italicized, bolded, or underlined text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 objected to because of the following informalities: improper indentation. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
Claims 1 and 3-6 are further objected to because the spacing between the less than symbols hinders the readability of the claim. In order to improve the readability, claim 1 should read “(1-w)/3 < p < 25%”. The same spacing applies to the ranges found in claims 3-6.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the weight average molecular weight Wa of the flexible block A and the thickness d of the separator satisfy that 3 ≤ Wa/d ≤ 25”. The weight average molecular weight of the polymers is in the order of tens of thousands of Daltons, and the thickness of the separator is on the order of 10-100 micrometers. For example, paragraph [0050] of the specification recites “A PS-PEO-PS triblock polymer was prepared … wherein the weight average molecular weight of a rigid block PS block was 8 ten thousand, and the weight average molecular weight of a flexible block PEO block was 18 ten thousand” and paragraph [0056] recites “A separator having a thickness of 5 µm”. Therefore, the claimed range is impossible to satisfy. For the purpose of examination, claim 5 is being read as “the weight average molecular weight Wa of the flexible block A and the thickness d of the separator satisfy that 3 ≤ Wa/d ≤ 25 in unit of ten thousand”. This interpretation is in line with the ranges of claim 4 which specify the weight average molecular weight of the polymer blocks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for 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, 2, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 20190326579 A1, “Ryu”).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 8, Ryu discloses a composite separator for a lithium secondary battery (i.e. a lithium battery separator, [0009]) wherein the lithium secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and said composite separator which includes a composite electrolyte coated on the surface of a porous substrate (i.e. a lithium battery, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte, and the separator, [0009] and [0010]). The composite separator contains a block copolymer in an amount of 2 parts to 70 parts by weight with respect to the components making up the separator (i.e. the separator contains a block polymer wherein the mass percentage (w) relative to the separator is > 40%, [0100]-[0105]). The porous substrate has a porosity (p) of 10% to 90% ([0110]). The relationship set forth by the claim, (1-w)/3 < p < 25%, is maintained. For example, using an exemplary weight percent within the range above, such as 50 parts by weight, satisfies the relationship (e.g. (1-50)/3 = 16.667 < p < 25), and the range therein overlaps with the range as referenced above. 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Ryu discloses that the separator is further coated with a binder/glue such as poly(vinylidene fluoride) (i.e. a surface of the separator is further coated with ceramic powder or polymer glue and the polymer glue comprises one or more of PVDF, PMMA, and PAN, [0126]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ryu discloses the organic solvent may include an aprotic solvent such as ethylene carbonate (i.e. the electrolyte comprises a cyclic carbonate, see [0078] for complete list of carbonates).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 20190326579 A1, “Ryu”) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 7-9 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 20160351956 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Ryu discloses that poly(styrene-ethylene oxide-styrene) is used as the block copolymer (i.e. a polymer block structure of B-A-B, wherein A is the flexible block of polyethylene oxide and B is the rigid block of polystyrene, see [0101]-[0105]). However, Ryu is silent regarding the molecular weights of these polymer blocks. Lee discloses an electrolyte composition that is used with a separator in a lithium secondary battery ([0130]) wherein the electrolyte comprises a triblock copolymer of (A-B-A′ or B-A-B′) including a first block, a second block, and a third block (i.e. a structure of the block polymer is AnBm, AnBmAn, or BmAnBm, [0051]). The polymer blocks A and A’ are the polymer blocks including a structural repeating unit (i.e. a rigid block B, [0051]) and the polymer block B is an ion conductive repeating unit or an olefin-based repeating unit (i.e. a flexible block A, [0052]). Lee further discloses that the polymer blocks have a number average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 Daltons to 500,000 Daltons, and the ratio between olefin-based repeating block’s and structural repeating block’s number average molecular weights, using exemplary an example within the range of Lee, is 1 (i.e. a weight average molecular weight Wa of the flexible block A and a weight average molecular weight Wb of the rigid block B satisfy that 0.25 ≤ Wa/Wb ≤ 5, see [0047]). Furthermore, the number average molecular weight (i.e. weight average molecular weight) range of 10,000 Daltons to 500,000 Daltons for both blocks overlaps with the ranges presented in claim 4, as using an exemplary value within the range of Lee such as 500,000 Daltons, falls within the ranges of claim 4 (i.e. the weight average molecular weight Wa of the flexible block A satisfies that 8 ≤ Wa ≤ 100 in unit of ten thousand; the weight average molecular weight Wb of the rigid block B satisfies that 10 ≤ Wb ≤ 150 in unit of ten thousand). 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Ryu and Lee each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: separators for lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synthesize the block polymer so that each block fell within the weight average molecular weight range of Lee, as when the block copolymer includes polymer blocks having the number average molecular weight within these ranges, the electrolyte may have good chemical and mechanical properties such as ion conductivity, flexibility, elasticity, and strength, due to an appropriate degree of polymerization ([0047] of Lee).
Regarding Claim 5, Ryu in view of Lee discloses the thickness of the composite separator as ranging from 4 µm to 100 µm (i.e. a thickness (d) of the separator satisfies that 3 ≤ d ≤ 20 in unit of µm, [0109] of Ryu). 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
As discussed in the analysis of claims 3 and 4, Lee discloses that the polymer blocks have a number average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 Daltons to 500,000 Daltons ([0047]). Using an exemplary value within that range, it can be shown that when the number average molecular weight of the olefin-based repeating unit (i.e. flexible block) such as 500,000 Daltons, and an exemplary thickness of the electrode, such as 10 µm, the relationship is established and falls within the limits of the claim (i.e. the weight average molecular weight Wa of the flexible block A and the thickness d of the separator satisfy that 3 ≤ Wa/d ≤ 25). 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Ryu discloses the block copolymer as being poly(styrene-ethylene oxide-styrene) (see [0105]). This copolymer consists of a polystyrene as the rigid block and polyethylene oxide as the flexible block. Considering the ether monomer as depicted in claim 6, R1 for polyethylene oxide is -C2H4-, which has a molecular weight of 28 and satisfies the relationship of claim 6 (i.e. a molecular weight W1 of R1 satisfies 28 ≤ W1 ≤ 108). Regarding the rigid block, polystyrene satisfies the alkyl polymer formula wherein R2 is hydrogen and R3 is a cyclic unsaturated hydrocarbyl (i.e. a benzene ring).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu as applied to claims 1, 2, and 7-9 above, in view of Ma et al. (WO 2020238302 A1, machine translation used hereafter, “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ryu discloses the electrolyte as comprising a cyclic carbonate, specifically ethylene carbonate ([0078]). Ryu however is silent regarding the mass percentage of the cyclic carbonate relative to the electrolyte as being >15%. Ma discloses a lithium secondary battery electrolyte including a cyclic carbonate, such as ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (i.e. the cyclic carbonate is selected from any one or more of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, and difluoroethylene carbonate; [0051]). The mass percentage of the cyclic carbonate in the electrolyte ranges from 5% to 70% (i.e. a mass percentage (u) of the cyclic carbonate relative to the electrolyte is >15%; [0052]). 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Ryu and Ma each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: electrolytes for lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cyclic carbonate, such as ethylene carbonate, in a mass percentage greater than 15% relative to the entire electrolyte, as modifying the weight percentage of an additive within an electrolytic solution so as to discover the optimal concentration is characterized as routine experimentation. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MALONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1730. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30a-5p, F: 7:30a-4p.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MALONEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
