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 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0185676 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising:
-a polymer porous support/(substrate) (110) (para. [0046]); and
-an inorganic composite porous layer/(heat resistant layer (120)) formed on at least one surface of the porous support/(substrate (110)) (para. [0046]),
wherein the inorganic composite porous layer/(heat resistant layer (120)) comprises a binder polymer and an inorganic filler/particles (para. [0045]),
the binder polymer comprises an amorphous polymer (para. [0052]-[0054]) having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 100-200°C (para. [0056]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 180°C or higher, - it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try glass transition temperatures at the upper end of the range in order to optimize the performance of the separator under elevated temperatures -; and
the separator has a dielectric breakdown voltage of 1.8 kV or higher (para. [0013]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 2 kV or more.
Lee fails to teach wherein a content of the inorganic filler ranges from 30 to 200 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder polymer. Lee, however, teaches that the ratio of the inorganic filler/particles to the binder polymer/resin can be optimized in order to optimize the porosity of the binder layer (para. [0077]). Therefore, the specific content of the inorganic filler is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the separator cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said content of the inorganic filler, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both being optimized as the content of the inorganic filler is adjusted, the precise content of the inorganic filler would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed content of the inorganic filler cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of the inorganic filler in the battery separator of Lee to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the separator has a dielectric breakdown voltage of 1.8 kV or higher (para. [0013]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 2 kV to 6 kV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try providing a separator that has a dielectric breakdown voltage greater than 1.8 kV in order to optimize the performance of the separator under elevated voltages.
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the separator has a dielectric breakdown strength of 1.8 kV or higher (para. [0013]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 4.5 kV/milli-inch or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try providing a separator that has a dielectric breakdown voltage greater than 1.8 kV in order to optimize the performance of the separator under elevated voltages.
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the separator has a total thickness of 10.5 um (para. [0094]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 5 µm to 20 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try providing a separator that has a thickness that falls within the instantly claimed range in order to provide a separator that is durable.
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the amorphous polymer has the glass transition temperature (Tg) of 100-200°C (para. [0056]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 180°C or higher includes one or more of polyimide (PI), polyamideimide (PAI), polyetherimide (PEI), polyphenylsulfone (PPSU), polycthersulfone (PES), or polysulfone (PSU), or two or more of them (para. [0015]).
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the binder polymer consists of an amorphous polymer having the glass transition temperature (Tg) of 100-200°C (para. [0056]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 180°C or higher [0056]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try glass transition temperatures at the upper end of the range in order to optimize the performance of the separator under elevated temperatures.
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above, but fails to teach wherein the content of the inorganic filler ranges from 40 to 185 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder polymer.
Lee, however, teaches that the ratio of the inorganic filler/particles to the binder polymer/resin can be optimized in order to optimize the porosity of the binder layer (para. [0077]). Therefore, the specific content of the inorganic filler is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the separator cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said content of the inorganic filler, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both being optimized as the content of the inorganic filler is adjusted, the precise content of the inorganic filler would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed content of the inorganic filler cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of the inorganic filler in the battery separator of Lee to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the inorganic filler has an average particle diameter that may be 500 nm or less (para. [0048]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range 20 nm - 700 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try providing an inorganic filler has an average particle diameter in the range of 20 nm to 700 nm in order to optimize the thickness and performance of the separator.
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches an electrochemical device, comprising:
-a positive electrode;-
-a negative electrode; and
-the separator of claim 1, as set forth above, interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. [0086]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium secondary battery (para. [0086]).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches a method for manufacturing the separator of claim 1, as set forth above, comprising:
preparing the polymer porous support/(substrate (110)) (para. [0045]);
applying a slurry including the amorphous polymer having the glass
transition temperature of 100-200°C (para. [0056]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 180°C or higher, the inorganic filler/particles (para. [0045]), and a solvent to the at least one surface of the polymer porous support/(substrate (110)) (para. [0072]); and
dipping the polymer porous support/(substrate (110)) coated with the slurry in a composition including a non-solvent for the amorphous polymer, followed by drying, so as to form the inorganic composite porous layer/(heat resistant layer (120)) (para. [0084]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try glass transition temperatures at the upper end of the range in order to optimize the performance of the separator under elevated temperatures.
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the non-solvent comprises one or more of water, methanol, ethanol (para. [0084]), propyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, butanediol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethyl acetamide, dimethyl formamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, cyclohexane, or isopropyl alcohol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 9/26/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights