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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 20230327287.
Regarding clam 1, Kim et al., teaches a separator (0007-0008) comprising: a porous substrate (0008-0009); and an inorganic particle layer (0008-0009) including a binder (0008-0017) and inorganic particles (0008-0009) disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (0008-0009), wherein the inorganic particles (0008-0009) include first inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 100nm-500nm (0009) or 1um-10um (0012-0014) (0055), wherein binder includes an acryl-based binder (0017; 0020) and an acrylamide-based water-soluble binder (0029), wherein the separator has heat shrinkage rates (0002; 0007; 0018) in the machine direction (MD; 0018) and in the transverse direction (TD; 0018) of 5% or less as measured after being allowed to stand at 150°C for 60 minutes (0018).
Kim does not teach the separator has a ΔGurley permeability of 40 sec/100 cc or less as calculated by the following Equation 1: Equation 1 ΔGurley permeability (sec/100 cc) = Pm – Ps, wherein Pm is a gas permeability of the separator and Ps is a gas permeability of the porous substrate; and does not teach wherein the inorganic particle layer has a packing density of 1.2 g/m2·μm or more.
However, Kim teaches similar materials in the separator, such as a porous substrate and inorganic particle layer including a binder, and A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Kim et al., does not teach wherein a ratio of a breakdown voltage (kV) of the separator to an overall average thickness (μm) of the separator is 0.15 kV/μm or more, and wherein the separator has a peak in a range of 1070 cm-1 to 1082 cm-1 in a spectrum by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR).
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding clam 2, Kim et al., teaches wherein the inorganic particles (0008-0009) include any one or two or more selected from the group consisting of metal oxides (0019; 0054), metal nitrides (0019; 0054), and metal carbides (0019; 0054).
Regarding clam 3, Kim et al., teaches wherein the inorganic particles have an average particle diameter (D50) of 1 to 10 um (0013-0014).
Regarding clam 5, Kim et al., does not teach wherein the inorganic particles further include second inorganic particles having a larger average particle diameter (D50) than the first inorganic particles.
Kim et al., teaches ““[0055] The average particle diameter of the inorganic particles comprised in the coating layer of the separator according to the embodiment and/or the inorganic particles comprised in the coating layer of the separator used in Gc measurement is not particularly limited, and for example, may be 10 nm to 5 μm, 10 nm to 1 μm, 10 nm to 500 nm, 100 nm to 500 nm, 200 nm to 400 nm, or about 300 nm.”
Therefore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding clam 6, Kim et al., does not teach wherein the second inorganic particles are included at 50 wt% or less based on the total weight of the first inorganic particles and the second inorganic particles.
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding clam 7, Kim et al., teaches wherein the acryl-based binder (0017; 0020; 0056) is an acryl-based particulate binder (0017; 0020; 0056-0061).
Regarding clam 8, Kim et al., teaches that the glass transition temperature is not limited to a claimed range (0015; 0064).
Regarding clam 9, Kim et al., teaches wherein the acrylamide-based water-soluble binder (0017; 0020; 0056) has a glass transition temperature of 50°C to 70°C (0015) or 55-65 deg C (0064).
Regarding clam 11, Kim et al., does not teach wherein the binder is included at 0.1 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the inorganic particles.
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding clam 12, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a weight ratio between the acrylamide-based water-soluble binder and the acryl-based particulate binder is 1:1 to 1:10.
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding clam 14, Kim et al., teaches lithium secondary battery comprising the separator of claim 1 (0044; 0082).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights