DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/696,811 (Sung et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0405370 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0294078 A1 and corresponding published PCT/KR2020/010921, published February 3, 2022), the above evidenced by Sada et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0029010 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a separator for an electrochemical device (claim 1), the separator comprising: a porous polymer substrate (ibid); and a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (ibid), wherein the porous coating layer comprises a polymer binder, inorganic particles, and an organic filler (ibid), and the polymer binder is comprised in an amount of 1 part to 10 parts by weight based on a total weight of the porous coating layer (claim 11).
The above identified Application fails to claim wherein the inorganic particles have a packing density of 2 g/cm³ or more to 2.5 g/cm³ or less, and the polymer binder and the organic filler are comprised at a weight ratio of 5:1 to 1:5.
However, Kim et al. teaches that the packing density of the inorganic particles should be greater than 1 g/cm3 and can be varied to affect the heat resistance and stability of the separator (Paragraphs 0058 - 0060). Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal packing density of the inorganic particles meeting Applicants’ claimed range by optimizing the results effective variable through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the polymer binder and organic filler weight ratio, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each polymeric component through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Sung et al. discloses organic filler materials reading on the claimed limitations (claim 8).
Regarding claim 3, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Sung et al. disclose polymer binders meeting the claimed limitations (claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the weight average molecular weight of the polymer binder through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating1. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, the packing density of the inorganic particles is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Sung et al. discloses the nominal battery structure (claim 16).
Regarding claim 8, substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, single component electrolytes and mixed electrolytes, including EC/EMC at a 3/7 ratio, are all deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable electrolyte mixtures used in secondary batteries, particularly lithium ion secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). For evidence of these equivalencies of material selection, see Sada et al. (Paragraph 0054). Regarding the concentration ratio 3/7, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each electrolyte component through routine experimentation, especially given the evidentiary teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both EC and EMC in the electrolyte. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner takes Official Notice that lithium ion secondary batteries are ubiquitous in the secondary battery arts (e.g. see Kim et al., as well as evidenced by Sada et al.).
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the air permeability of the separator through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that air permeability is a critical parameter for separators2. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the shrinkage rate of the separator in the TD direction through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that a skilled artisan would want to minimize TD shrinkage in separators3. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Sung et al. also teaches values within the claimed range (claim 18).
Regarding claim 12, Sung et al. discloses the amount of polymer binder meeting the claimed limitations (claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. disclose inorganic particle dielectric values meeting the claimed range for improved ion conductivity (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 14, Sung et al. disclose inorganic particle D50 values greater than 50 – 500 nm (claims 5 and 6), but fails to explicitly disclose the inorganic D50 sizes. However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the D50 particle sizes of the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional particle sizes in separators4. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional thickness values for porous coating layers on separators5. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of the polymeric binder and the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these both these components are desired to be used in the separators. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 18 – 20, the added limitations are deemed nominal and conventional, as all solid-state batteries in various classes of electric vehicles are ubiquitous in the secondary battery arts6.
Claims 1 and 3 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/290,530 (Jeong et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2025/0343323 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0294078 A1 and corresponding published PCT/KR2020/010921, published February 3, 2022), the above evidenced by Sada et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0029010 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the above identified Application claims a separator for an electrochemical device (claim 8), the separator comprising: a porous polymer substrate (ibid); and a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (ibid), wherein the porous coating layer comprises a polymer binder, inorganic particles, and an organic filler (claims 8 and 11), and the polymer binder is comprised in an amount of 1 part to 10 parts by weight based on a total weight of the porous coating layer (claim 13).
The above identified Application fails to claim wherein the inorganic particles have a packing density of 2 g/cm³ or more to 2.5 g/cm³ or less, and the polymer binder and the organic filler are comprised at a weight ratio of 5:1 to 1:5.
However, Kim et al. teaches that the packing density of the inorganic particles should be greater than 1 g/cm3 and can be varied to affect the heat resistance and stability of the separator (Paragraphs 0058 - 0060). Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal packing density of the inorganic particles meeting Applicants’ claimed range by optimizing the results effective variable through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the polymer binder and organic filler weight ratio, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each polymeric component through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong et al. disclose polymer binders meeting the claimed limitations (claim 12).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the weight average molecular weight of the polymer binder through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating7. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, the packing density of the inorganic particles is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong et al. discloses the nominal battery structure (claim 17).
Regarding claim 8, substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, single component electrolytes and mixed electrolytes, including EC/EMC at a 3/7 ratio, are all deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable electrolyte mixtures used in secondary batteries, particularly lithium ion secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). For evidence of these equivalencies of material selection, see Sada et al. (Paragraph 0054). Regarding the concentration ratio 3/7, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each electrolyte component through routine experimentation, especially given the evidentiary teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both EC and EMC in the electrolyte. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong et al. disclose the claimed lithium ion secondary battery (claim 17).
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the air permeability of the separator through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that air permeability is a critical parameter for separators8. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the shrinkage rate of the separator in the TD direction through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that a skilled artisan would want to minimize TD shrinkage in separators9. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong et al. discloses the amount of polymer binder meeting the claimed limitations (claim 13).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. disclose inorganic particle dielectric values meeting the claimed range for improved ion conductivity (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the D50 particle sizes of the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional particle sizes in separators10. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional thickness values for porous coating layers on separators11. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of the polymeric binder and the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these both these components are desired to be used in the separators. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 18 – 20, the added limitations are deemed nominal and conventional, as all solid-state batteries in various classes of electric vehicles are ubiquitous in the secondary battery arts12.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 and 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0305658 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0294078 A1 and corresponding published PCT/KR2020/010921, published February 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. discloses a separator for an electrochemical device (Title; Abstract), the separator comprising: a porous polymer substrate (ibid and Paragraphs 0071 - 0076); and a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate (Title; Abstract; and Paragraph 0059), wherein the porous coating layer comprises a polymer binder (Title; Abstract; and Paragraphs 0039 - 0045), inorganic particles (ibid), and an organic filler (Paragraph 0060), and the polymer binder is comprised in an amount of 1 part to 10 parts by weight based on a total weight of the porous coating layer (Paragraph 0061).
The above identified Application fails to claim wherein the inorganic particles have a packing density of 2 g/cm³ or more to 2.5 g/cm³ or less, and the polymer binder and the organic filler are comprised at a weight ratio of 5:1 to 1:5.
However, Kim et al. teaches that the packing density of the inorganic particles should be greater than 1 g/cm3 and can be varied to affect the heat resistance and stability of the separator (Paragraphs 0058 - 0060). Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal packing density of the inorganic particles meeting Applicants’ claimed range by optimizing the results effective variable through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the polymer binder and organic filler weight ratio, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each polymeric component through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Cho et al. to meet the entirety of the limitations of claim 1 as taught by Kim et al. and as recognized by an artisan skilled in the art as routine optimization to achieve improved performance of the disclosed separator.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al. discloses organic filler materials reading on the claimed limitations (Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 3, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al. disclose polymer binders meeting the claimed limitations (Paragraphs 0044 - 0045).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the weight average molecular weight of the polymer binder through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both types of polymeric components in the separator coating13. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also Paragraphs 0038 and 0055 for disclosures of similar molecular weights for the binders used in the Cho et al. embodiment, which overlap/encompass the claimed molecular weight range.
Regarding claim 6, the packing density of the inorganic particles is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Cho et al. discloses the nominal battery structure (Title; Abstract; and Paragraphs 0081 - 0113).
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al. disclose lithium ion secondary batteries (ibid).
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the shrinkage rate of the separator in the TD direction through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that a skilled artisan would want to minimize TD shrinkage in separators14. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Cho et al. also teaches values within the claimed range (Paragraph 0077 and examples).
Regarding claim 12, the amount of polymer binder is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. disclose inorganic particle dielectric values meeting the claimed range for improved ion conductivity (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the D50 particle sizes of the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional particle sizes in separators15. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Cho et al. also discloses values meeting the claimed range limitations (Paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these are conventional thickness values for porous coating layers on separators16. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Cho et al. also discloses values meeting the claimed range limitations (Paragraph 0067 and examples).
Regarding claim 16, the binder to organic filler weight ratio is deemed obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of the polymeric binder and the inorganic filler through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that these both these components are desired to be used in the separators. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 18 – 20, the added limitations are deemed nominal and conventional, as all solid-state batteries in various classes of electric vehicles are ubiquitous in the secondary battery arts17.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied above, and further in view of Sada et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0029010 A1).
Cho et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon as described above.
Neither of the above disclose the specific electrolyte mixture as claimed.
However, substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, single component electrolytes and mixed electrolytes, including EC/EMC at a 3/7 ratio, are all deemed functional equivalents in the field of suitable electrolyte mixtures used in secondary batteries, particularly lithium ion secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). For support of these equivalencies of material selection, see Sada et al. (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding the concentration ratio 3/7, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts of each electrolyte component through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching above regarding the desire to utilize both EC and EMC in the electrolyte. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. to use an electrolyte mixture meeting the claimed limitations as taught by Sada et al., as mixtures of EC/EMC are recognized as far back as 2004 and optimization of the relative amounts of each component is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art when determining an optimal electrolyte mixture.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2011/0311856 A1).
Cho et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon as described above.
Neither of the above disclose the air permeability of the separator.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the air permeability of the separator through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that air permeability is a critical parameter for separators, as taught by Matsui et al. (Paragraph 0045), including teaching of air permeability values encompassing the claimed range. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Cho et al. in view of Kim et al. to ensure air permeability values of the separator meeting the claimed limitations as taught by Matsui et al., as such values are known optimizable parameters and a skilled artisan knows to utilize values meeting the claimed limitations when forming separators having good performance characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 16, 2026
1 See cited and applied art, as well as art supplied on Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements that supports that molecular weights in the claimed range are known and conventional in the separator arts.
2 For support of the position that air permeability in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
3 For support of the position that shrinkage rate in the TD direction in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
4 For support of the position that D50 inorganic particle sizes in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
5 For support of the position that porous separator coating layer thickness values in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
6 For support that all-solid-state batteries and the various classes of EV vehicles are old in the art, see the art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
7 See cited and applied art, as well as art supplied on Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements that supports that molecular weights in the claimed range are known and conventional in the separator arts.
8 For support of the position that air permeability in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
9 For support of the position that shrinkage rate in the TD direction in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
10 For support of the position that D50 inorganic particle sizes in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
11 For support of the position that porous separator coating layer thickness values in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
12 For support that all-solid-state batteries and the various classes of EV vehicles are old in the art, see the art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
13 See cited and applied art, as well as art supplied on Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements that supports that molecular weights in the claimed range are known and conventional in the separator arts.
14 For support of the position that shrinkage rate in the TD direction in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
15 For support of the position that D50 inorganic particle sizes in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
16 For support of the position that porous separator coating layer thickness values in these ranges are known desired parameters, see art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
17 For support that all-solid-state batteries and the various classes of EV vehicles are old in the art, see the art applied below, as well as cited on the various PTO-892 and PTO-1449’s in the file record.
Prosecution Insights