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 § 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 3 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 3 recites a separator having a range of thickness, where the thickness is defined by equation 1. But Equation 1 includes two thickness values and nothing in the claim explains whether the recited thickness range corresponds to T1 or T2 in equation 1.
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, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Publication No. KR 2015-0084637 to Kim citing to the enclosed machine translation (“Kim”). Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 11, Kim discloses a separator for a lithium-ion secondary battery. The separator is made by a dual electrospinning technique where a first solution comprising a polymer is delivered at a rate of 5 microliters per minute and a second solution comprising inorganic particles is delivered at a rate of 70 microliters per minute. The resulting composite film comprising the inorganic particles and polymer is then pressed to a thickness of 28 microns. The inorganic particles are metal oxides, with silicon oxide used in all working emboidments. The polymer can be selected from PTFE, polyimide, polyamide, among others. In working embodiments, PVDF is used, and no polyolefin is contained in the final polymer/inorganic particle composite separator. See, Example 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Further regarding claim 10, as noted above, many of the polymers suggested for use as the polymer in the method of Kim are found in the recited list, thus rendering those polymers obvious choices to use in the method of Kim in place of PVDF.
Further regarding claim 2, Kim doesn’t disclose a final relative amount of inorganic particle in its separator. Nonetheless, Kim notes that the amount of inorganic particle included will impact porosity and permeability of the membrane, all of which should be controlled to arrive at a separator having sufficient performance as an insulator and ion conductor in a battery. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the amount of inorganic particle to include to be nothing more than the obvious product of routine experimentation.
Further regarding claim 3, the final thickness of the separators in Kim is in the recited range. Moreover, Kim uses inorganic particles and polymers that are the same as that of Applicant. Thus, the Office finds sufficient evidence to establish that the separators will also satisfy Equation 1 since they are otherwise the same as those disclosed by Applicant.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, Kim is silent regarding a silicon-based negative electrode active material in its lithium-ion battery systems, instead disclosing carbon. Nonetheless, us of silicon metal, silicon alloy, and silicon oxide in place of some or all of carbon active material because of its higher storage capacity is ubiquitous in the lithium-ion battery art and thus is found to be nothing more than the obvious substitution of a commonly known alternative active material.
Further regarding claim 12, although Kim doesn’t disclose the temperature at which the pressing occurs, the Office finds that absent a teaching of a need to heat, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would consider first pressing at room temperature (i.e., 25 C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 5, and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Kim discloses that an adhesive polymer may be added to the solution comprising the inorganic particles, where the adhesive polymer is PVDF or polyvinylidene tetrafluoropropylene. These materials have melting point that is intermediate amongst the various polymers used in the first solution and nothing in Kim suggests that this second polymer should be chosen based on its melting point. Thus, Kim is silent regarding providing a second polymer layer the second polymer having a melting point higher than that of the first polymer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
