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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 2, 2024, November 12, 2024 and July 24, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 states that the separator “comprises one of” a number of items, including a substrate, such already being required by claim 1 on which it depends, and since the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language “comprises one of” means that any one of the following items being included meets the requirements of the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. No. 2020/0185676) in view of Kim (KR 2016-0136089; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18-19, Lee teaches a battery comprising a separator 100 (paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and 0046]) (“for a rechargeable lithium battery” in claim 1 is an intended use, regardless Lee teaches that the separator can be used in a rechargeable lithium battery), the separator including a substrate 110, a heat resistant layer 120 formed on both surfaces of the substrate (paragraph [0046]; figure 1), and an adhesive layer 130 provided on outermost surfaces of the heat resistant layer (paragraph [0062]; figure 1), where the heat resistant layer can include Al2O3, TiO2, SnO2, CeO2, MgO, NiO, CaO and ZnO (paragraph [0049]), all of these being ceramics claimed in claim 11. Lee does not specifically disclose that the adhesive layer includes an adhesive binder including a polymer having an IPN structure. Kim teaches using an electrode binding layer (claimed adhesive layer) which can be a combination of a first and second polymer resin crosslinked in an IPN structure (claimed IPN) and a mixture of the first polymer resin particles (taken to be the claimed organic filler) and second polymer resin particles (machine translation at page 6, fourth paragraph – page 7, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive layer as taught by Kim in the separator of Lee as a simple substitution of one known adhesive layer with another in a separator with predictable results (see MPEP at 2143 I. B).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches that the second polymer is preferably a (meth) acrylic acid ester and that methyl (meth) acrylate is particularly preferable, and that the first polymer can be vinylidene fluoride (machine translation at page 8, fourth paragraph through end of page).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the content of the first polymer resin in the polymer composite is preferably 30 to 99 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the composite (machine translation at page 7, fourth paragraph), resulting in an overlapping range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kim teaches that the first polymer resin is vinylidene fluoride polymer resin and has a melting point of 80 to 200 °C (machine translation at page 8, third to fourth paragraph), completely encompassing the claimed range of claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the electrode binding layer can be 100% a mixture of the first and second polymer resin, 100% an IPN of the first and second polymer resin, or a mixture thereof (machine translation at page 6, last paragraph – page 7, first paragraph), thus teaching a range of from 0:100 to 100:0 as claimed, overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a loading amount of from 0.05g/m2 to 5 g/m2 (machine translation at page 7, last paragraph), completely encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches that the ceramic can have a particle size of about .001 micron (1 nm) to about 10 microns (paragraph [0048]), completely encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches binders for a heat resistant layer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and carboxyl methyl cellulose (machine translation at page 6, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches that the heat resistant layer has a weight ratio of inorganic particles (claimed ceramic) of 50 to 99.9% of the weight of the heat resistant layer (machine translation at page 4, second to last paragraph), resulting in an overlapping range.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches that the heat resistant layer has a thickness of 1-50 microns (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a specific embodiment using a polypropylene (type of polyolefin as claimed) film as the substrate (paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches a thickness of the substrate of 5-50 microns (paragraph [0042]), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that the battery has a positive electrode and a negative electrode (paragraph [0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eitouni (US Pub. No. 2017/0256818).
Regarding claim 4, Lee (combined) does not specifically disclose the molecular weight of the binder. However, most of the binder is the IPN polymer, and Eitouni teaches that there are tradeoffs in the weight of an IPN precursor (paragraph [0076]), indicating that the molecular weight of such is a result effective variable able to be optimized. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the molecular weight of the IPN polymer, and thus to arrive at the claimed range of molecular weight of the binder, because Eitouni teaches that IPN precursor molecular weight is a result effective variable.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US Pub. No. 2020/0388808).
Regarding claims 7-8, Lee (combined) does not specifically disclose the D50 particle diameter or the molecular weight of the organic filler. Choi teaches using polyvinylidene fluoride particles in an adhesive layer with a width average molecular weight from about 100,000 g/mol to about 1,500,000 g/mol (paragraph [0135]), completely encompassing the claimed range of claim 8, and a particle size of about 100 nm to about 500 nm (paragraph [0138]), such a range being completely encompassed by the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use particle size and molecular weight for the polyvinylidene fluoride particles as taught by Choi in the separator of Lee (combined) as a combination of prior art methods according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP at 2143 I. A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 October 7, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights