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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 states “…wherein the coating layer is formed to be 0.5 to 10 g/m2” when it should state “…wherein a weight per unit area of the coating layer is formed to be 0.5 to 10 g/m2” (based on Applicant’s P53 in the filed specification).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US 20220149483 A1, equivalent to EP3920264B1 given in the 04/16/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a separator comprising (see entire disclosure and especially P41): a porous substrate (see entire disclosure and especially P42, 49-73); and
a coating layer disposed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (a heat-resistant porous layer provided on one side or on both sides of the porous substrate; see entire disclosure and especially P42), wherein the coating layer comprises a nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer and barium sulfate particles (binder resin or other resin and barium sulfate particles; the binder resin can include polyacrylamide, therefore, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer can be chosen to be polyacrylamide; the other resin can be used in the coating layer, the other resin can be chosen to be a polyvinylpyrrolidone, therefore, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer could instead be chosen to be the other resin’s polyvinylpyrrolidone; see entire disclosure and especially P43, 74-136).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses wherein the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinylpyrrolidone-based copolymers, and polyacrylamide-based resins (the binder resin can include polyacrylamide, therefore, if the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer is drawn to the binder resin, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer comprises a polyacrylamide-based resin; the other resin can include polyvinylpyrrolidone, therefore, if the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer is drawn to the other resin, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer comprises polyvinylpyrrolidone; see entire disclosure and especially P18, 82, 84, 103).
Regarding claims 3-5, the claims further limit the polyacrylamide-based resin, however, these claims do not require that the polyacrylamide-based resin be the resin chosen as the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer in the separator. Therefore, given the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer of Sato can be chosen to be polyvinylpyrrolidone (rather than a polyacrylamide-based resin) as set forth in claim 2, of which claims 3-5 depend, these claims are not required to be met by Sato.
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses wherein the coating layer further comprises one or more types of inorganic particles selected from boehmite, alumina, silica, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum nitrides, SrTiO3, SnO2, CeO2, NiO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y2O3, and SiC (inorganic particles other than the barium sulfate particles may be included in the heat-resistant porous layer; the inorganic particles can include aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, alumina, silica, etc.; see entire disclosure and especially P117-121).
Regarding claim 12, Sato discloses wherein the coating layer further comprises one or more resins selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl acetate, acryl-based resins, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, polyvinylidene fluoride-trichloroethylene copolymer, polyvinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyimide (the binder resin can be a combination of two or more kinds; other binder resins that can be used include polyvinylidene fluoride type resins such as polyvinylidene fluoride or a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, trichloroethylene, or chlorotrifluoroethylene; another resin other than the binder resin can also be used, this resin can be carboxymethyl cellulose; see entire disclosure and especially P82, 87-93, 103).
Regarding claim 15, Sato discloses wherein the porous substrate is any one or a lamination of two or more selected from the group consisting of a porous film, a nonwoven fabric, and a woven fabric (the porous substrate can include a microporous film, a porous sheet made of non-woven fabric, or a composite porous sheet in which on a microporous film or a porous sheet, one or more of another porous layer are laminated; see entire disclosure and especially P50).
Regarding claim 16, Sato discloses wherein the porous substrate has a thickness of 4 µm or more and 15 µm or less (see entire disclosure and especially P68), which lies within the claimed range of 1 to 80 µm.
Regarding claim 17, Sato discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a separator (see entire disclosure and especially P41, 170-185), wherein the separator comprises:
a porous substrate (see entire disclosure and especially P42, 49-73); and
a coating layer disposed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (a heat-resistant porous layer provided on one side or on both sides of the porous substrate; see entire disclosure and especially P42), wherein the coating layer comprises a nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer and barium sulfate particles (binder resin or other resin and barium sulfate particles; the binder resin can include polyacrylamide, therefore, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer can be chosen to be polyacrylamide; the other resin can be used in the coating layer, the other resin can be chosen to be a polyvinylpyrrolidone, therefore, the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer could instead be chosen to be the other resin’s polyvinylpyrrolidone; see entire disclosure and especially P43, 74-136).
Regarding claim 18, Sato discloses wherein the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinylpyrrolidone-based copolymers, and polyacrylamide-based resins (the binder resin can include polyacrylamide; see entire disclosure and especially P18, 82, 84).
Regarding claim 19, Sato discloses wherein the coating layer further comprises one or more types of inorganic particles selected from boehmite, alumina, silica, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum nitrides, SrTiO3, SnO2, CeO2, NiO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y2O3, and SiC (inorganic particles other than the barium sulfate particles may be included in the heat-resistant porous layer; the inorganic particles can include aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, alumina, silica, etc.; see entire disclosure and especially P117-121).
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.
Claims 7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 20220149483 A1, equivalent to EP3920264B1 given in the 04/16/2025 IDS) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses wherein the barium sulfate particles have an average particle diameter of 0.01 µm to 0.3 µm (see entire disclosure and especially P108), which overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 1000 nm (0.2 µm to 1 µm), and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses the thickness of the separator is 10 µm or more and 25 µm or less (see entire disclosure and especially P138; given Sato says this is the thickness of the separator and not the porous substrate, as seen in P68, it is taken as the “total thickness” of the separator). Sato discloses the thickness of the coating layer (heat-resistant porous layer) is 1 µm or more and 10 µm or less as the total thickness of the coating layers on both sides in both cases where the coating layer is present only on one side of the porous substrate and where the coating layer is present on both sides (see entire disclosure and especially P127).
Therefore, the thickness of the coating layer is 4% (1/25) to less than 100% (10/10) of a total thickness of the separator, which overlaps the claimed range of wherein a thickness of the coating layer is 0.1 to 50% of a total thickness of the separator, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses wherein the mass of the coating layer (heat-resistant porous layer) per unit area is formed to be 1.0 g/m2 or more to 30 g/m2 or less, preferably 10 g/m2 or less (see entire disclosure and especially P128), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 10 g/m2, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 8-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 20220149483 A1, equivalent to EP3920264B1 given in the 04/16/2025 IDS) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 20, respectively, further in view of Lee et al (US 20220037739 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sato does not disclose wherein the barium sulfate particles include a mixture of two or more types of particles having different average particle diameters from each other.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery including a coating layer (P35). Lee teaches the coating layer includes a (meth)acrylic copolymer and two types of inorganic particles having different average particle diameters (P40, 44). Lee teaches the inorganic particles may be a mixture of first inorganic particles having a relatively large average particle diameter and second inorganic particles having a relatively small average particle diameter (P47). Lee teaches the first inorganic particles may be large particle diameter inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 400 nm to 600 nm (P48). Lee teaches the second inorganic particles may be small particle diameter inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 50 nm to 200 nm (P49). Lee teaches by mixing the small particle diameter inorganic particles with the large particle diameter inorganic particles, heat resistance and moisture resistance as well as the substrate binding force of the separator may be improved, and thus the safety and cycle-life characteristics of the battery may be improved (P54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and modified the barium sulfate particles to include a mixture of two or more types of particles having different average particle diameters from each other, such as barium sulfate particles having a large particle diameter and barium sulfate particles having a small particle diameter, given Lee teaches mixing small particle diameter inorganic particles with large particle diameter inorganic particles in a coating layer for a separator, improves heat resistance and moisture resistance as well as the substrate binding force of the separator , and thus the safety and cycle-life characteristics of a battery may be improved.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sato includes barium sulfate particles having a large particle diameter of 400 nm to 600 nm (drawn to the claimed second barium sulfate particles), which overlaps the claimed range of an average particle diameter of 500 to 1000 nm, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Modified Sato includes barium sulfate particles having a small particle diameter of 50 nm to 200 nm (drawn to the claimed first barium sulfate particles), which overlaps the claimed range of an average particle diameter of 200 to 500 nm, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Modified Sato includes a difference in the average particle diameter between the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles to be 200 or more and 950 or less (looking at the overlapping ranges portion of the diameters, it is 300 nm or more and 800 nm or less), which overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm or more, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
One of ordinary skill in the art can choose the first barium sulfate particles to be 200 nm (within the claimed range) and the second barium sulfate particles to be 500 nm (within the claimed range). In this case, the difference in the average particle diameter between the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles is 300 nm.
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches as the content of the second inorganic particles mixed with the first inorganic particles increases, the wet heat shrinkage rate and moisture content decrease, and particularly, when the second inorganic particles are included in an amount of less than 75 wt % based on the total amount of the first inorganic particles and the second inorganic particles, the wet heat shrinkage rate and the moisture content of the separator may be minimized (P55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and provided wherein the first barium sulfate particles (small diameter particles) are included in an amount of less than 75 wt % based on the total amount of the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles, given Lee teaches the wet heat shrinkage rate and the moisture content of the separator may be minimized.
If the first barium sulfate particles are included in an amount of less than 75 wt % based on the total amount of the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles, then the second barium sulfate particles are included in an amount of 25 wt % or more based on the total amount of the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles. This leads a weight ratio between the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles to be 3:1 or less (75:25 or less). The weight ratio of 3:1 or less lies within the claimed weight ratio between the first barium sulfate particles and the second barium sulfate particles being 10 to 90: 90 to 10.
Regarding claim 11, Sato does not disclose wherein the coating layer has a weight ratio between the barium sulfate particles and the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery including a coating layer (P35). Lee teaches the coating layer includes a (meth)acrylic copolymer including a first structural unit derived from (meth)acrylamide and two types of inorganic particles having different average particle diameters (P40, 44). Lee teaches the coating layer may include the binder including the (meth)acrylic copolymer : a sum of the first inorganic particles and second inorganic particles in a weight ratio of 1:15 to 1:50, for example 1:20 to 1:40 or 1:20 to 1:30 (P65). Lee teaches when the (meth)acrylic copolymer and inorganic particles are included in the above ranges in the coating layer, the separator has excellent adhesive strength and heat resistance, in particular, an improved wet heat shrinkage, which directly affects actual battery performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and selected a weight ratio between the barium sulfate particles and the nitrogen-containing water-soluble polymer of Sato to be between 15:1 to 50:1, given Lee teaches when a similar binder and inorganic particles in a coating layer are included in said range, a separator has excellent adhesive strength and heat resistance, in particular, an improved wet heat shrinkage, which directly affects actual battery performance.
The range of 15:1 to 50:1 lies within the claimed range of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1.
Regarding claim 20, Sato does not disclose wherein the barium sulfate particles include a mixture of two or more types of particles having different average particle diameters from each other.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a separator for a lithium secondary battery including a coating layer (P35). Lee teaches the coating layer includes a (meth)acrylic copolymer and a two types of inorganic particles having different average particle diameters (P40, 44). Lee teaches the inorganic particles may be a mixture of first inorganic particles having a relatively large average particle diameter and second inorganic particles having a relatively small average particle diameter (P47). Lee teaches the first inorganic particles may be large particle diameter inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 400 nm to 600 nm (P48). Lee teaches the second inorganic particles may be small particle diameter inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 50 nm to 200 nm (P49). Lee teaches by mixing the small particle diameter inorganic particles with the large particle diameter inorganic particles, heat resistance and moisture resistance as well as the substrate binding force of the separator may be improved, and thus the safety and cycle-life characteristics of the battery may be improved (P54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and modified the barium sulfate particles to include a mixture of two or more types of particles having different average particle diameters from each other, such as barium sulfate particles having a large particle diameter and barium sulfate particles having a small particle diameter, given Lee teaches mixing small particle diameter inorganic particles with large particle diameter inorganic particles in a coating layer for a separator, improves heat resistance and moisture resistance as well as the substrate binding force of the separator , and thus the safety and cycle-life characteristics of a battery may be improved.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cai et al (CN110776863A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet)
Cai teaches a modified adhesive for lithium-ion battery ceramic separators (P2, 10-11, 18). Cai teaches the method for preparing the adhesive include mixing reactants of acrylamide and its derivates, and water-soluble unsaturated carboxylic acids (P19). Cai teaches the water-soluble unsaturated carboxylic acid can be hydroxyethylacrylate, (P17, 19). Cai teaches the acrylamide and its derivates can include one or more of methacrylamide and N,N' methylenebisacrylamide (P22). Cai teaches their adhesive can be coated on a surface of a polyolefin base film (P31). Cai teaches their adhesive has no adverse phenomena such as layering or precipitation after long-term storage (P29). Cai teaches their adhesive has improved performance, such as improved heat resistance and reduced water absorption (P8, 32).
Seo et al (US 20220021076 A1)
Seo teaches a coating layer includes a (meth)acrylic copolymer including a first structural unit derived from (meth)acrylamide, a second structural unit derived from (meth)acrylonitrile, and a third structural unit derived from (meth)acrylamido sulfonic acid, (meth)acrylamido sulfonic acid salt, or a combination thereof (Abstract). Seo teaches the (meth)acrylic copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 200,000 to 700,000 (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights