DETAILED ACTION
Application 19/315632, “ISOLATION FILM AND SECONDARY BATTERY AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS RELATED THERETO”, is the CONTINUATION of a PCT application filed on 4/10/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 1/12/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/12/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
Claim 1 as presently amended is not anticipated by Zhou because Zhou does not teach or suggest a coating layer in which “a content of the first particles is greater than or equal to 20%”. Applicant notes that paragraph [0049] of Zhou teaches a content of second inorganic particles included at 40 to 49 weight %, but the second inorganic particles of paragraph [0049] do not correspond to the “first particles” of claim 1 because the second inorganic particles of Zhou paragraph [0049] are contained in Zhou’s layer 3 [see Fig. 2], which is not relevant to the first particles of claim 1.
In response, applicant is correct that the second inorganic particles of paragraph [0049] do not map to the “first particles” of the coating layer and therefore do not teach the first particles having a content of greater than or equal to 20%. However, the rejection of claim 1 maps the “first particles” contained in Zhou coating layer 2 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0033-0034; 0039-0040]) to the claimed “first particles”. Zhou paragraph [0049] does not correspond to the first particles. Zhou’s Example 1 at paragraph [0094], however, does teach a content of the first particles being greater than 20% by mass of the coating layer (e.g. artificial graphite at 60% by mass, or Al2O3 at 36% by mass). It is noted that although the rejection of claim 4 cites paragraph [0049], paragraph [0094] was previously cited in the rejection of claim 7, including specifically pointing out the teaching of 36% by mass alumina and 60% by mass artificial graphite, thus the teachings of paragraph [0094] were made of record.
Claim 6 as presently amended is not anticipated by Zhou because Zhou does not teach or suggest a coating layer in which the second particles do not undergo oxidation and reduction reactions within an operating voltage range of a secondary battery.
In response, this argument is based on the amended claim which positively requires this feature, and is moot with respect to the previously presented ground(s) of rejection. It is noted that Zhou does teach second particles such as Al2O3 and TiO2 which are electrochemically stable and therefore would not be expected to undergo oxidation and reduction reactions within an operating voltage range of a secondary battery.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2020/0303707).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a separator (Fig. 1; title), comprising: a first porous base film (upper item 1) and a second porous base film (lower item 1); and a coating layer (item 2) disposed between the first porous base film and the second porous base film (see Fig. 1; paragraph [0033]), wherein the coating layer comprises first particles (paragraph [0034]), and the first particles comprise at least one of molybdenum disulfide, silicon oxide, transition metal oxide, or conductive carbon particles (paragraph [0038-0040]).
Regarding the 1/12/26 amendment to claim 1, Zhou further teaches wherein based on a total weight of the coating layer, a content of the first particles is greater than or equal to 20% (e.g. artificial graphite at 60% by mass, or Al2O3 at 36% by mass, at Example 1, paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein the first particles comprise at least one of the molybdenum disulfide or the transition metal oxide (e.g. “TiO2”, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein the transition metal oxide comprises one or more of manganese dioxide, cobalt oxide, iron oxide, or nickel oxide (“NiO”, paragraph [0012, 0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein based on a total weight of the coating layer, a content of the first particles is 30% to 60% (e.g. Al2O3 at 36% by mass at Example 1, paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein an average particle size of the first particles is less than or equal to 3 µm, optionally 0.01 µm to 1 µm (“0.001 μm to 15 μm”, paragraph [0043]; e.g. “1.2 µm” noting that 1.2 rounds to 1).
Regarding claim 6 and 19-20, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein the coating layer further comprises second particles, and the second particles do not undergo oxidation and reduction reactions within an operating voltage range of a secondary battery; the second particles comprise at least one of inorganic particles or organic particles (paragraph [0038-0040]; e.g. “Al2O3, TiO2”, paragraph [0040]). As to claim 19, Zhou teaches Al2O3 as an embodiment of the second inorganic particles. As to claim 20, the organic particles are only optionally claimed in base claim 6, which is taught by Zhou’s teaching of inorganic particles.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou remains as applied to claim 6. Zhou further teaches wherein based on a total weight of the coating layer, a ratio of a content of the second particles to the content of the first particles is less than or equal to 1 (for example, paragraph [0094] teaches a 36:60 ratio of second particles [alumina] to first particles [artificial graphite]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein the coating layer further comprises a binder; optionally, the binder comprises one or more of polyacrylate, acrylic acid, carboxymethylcellulose, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-trichloroethylene copolymer, polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl acetate, polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyethylene oxide, polyarylate, cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate butyrate, cellulose acetate propionate, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl alcohol, starch, hydroxypropyl cellulose, regenerated cellulose, tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, or cyanoethyl branched starch (“polyacrylate”, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou is silent as to wherein the separator satisfies each of conditions (1) to (6): (1) a machine direction thermal shrinkage of the separator is less than or equal to 1.0% at250 0C for 1 hour;(2) a transverse direction thermal shrinkage of the separator is less than or equal to 1.0% at 250 0C for 1 hour;(3) an air permeability of the separator is less than or equal to 500 s/100cc;(4) a machine direction tensile strength of the separator is greater than or equal to 600 kg/cm2;(5) a transverse direction tensile strength of the separator is greater than or equal to 1000 kg/cm2; and (6) an ionic conductivity of the separator ranges from 0.5 mS/cm to 2.0 mS/cm.
However, the recited limitations are properties of a battery separator which are a consequence of the structure of the separator. Since the Zhou separator includes the positively claimed structure, absent any evidence to the contrary, the same properties are expected. Therefore, the invention of claim 1 is anticipated by Zhou.
Regarding claim 16-17, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches the separator disposed between the electrodes of a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, such that the second porous base film of the separator faces the negative electrode plate (paragraph [0078-0079]).
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.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707) and Mizuno (TW 201727971; citations taken from machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou teaches the first coating layer comprising a first particle such as Al2O3 (paragraph [0040] for the benefit of lithium dendrite inhibition and/or good heat resistance (paragraph [0034]), but does not appear to teach wherein the first particle comprises molybdenum disulfide.
In the battery art, Mizuno teaches a separator layer configured to include inorganic particles such as alumina and molybdenum disulfide, as alternatives, for the benefit of enhancing the heat resistance and/or short circuit resistance of a separator (see second paragraph of section “3. Porous layer” on page 12 of the machine translation; corresponds to paragraph [0059] of the original document).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute molybdenum disulfide for some or all of the first inorganic particle of Zhou for the benefit of including an inorganic compound known to have desirable structural and heat resistance properties as taught by Mizuno. Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known inorganic material (e.g. alumina as taught by Zhou and Mizuno) for another (molybdenum disulfide taught by Mizuno); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in accordance with MPEP 2141.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707) and Lee (US 2014/0322586).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou teaches the separator comprising a coating layer which includes two types of particles (paragraphs [0034, 0038-0040]), but does not appear to teach wherein the coating layer comprises at least two sub-coating layers, with the first particles and the second particles disposed in different sub- coating layers.
In the battery art, Lee teaches a battery separator comprising two coating layers (Fig. 1), and further teaches that “[b]y the distribution of the first inorganic particles and the second inorganic particles independently in each porous coating layer, each of the inorganic particles may show its unique characteristics respectively” (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teaching of Zhou by placing the first and second particles thereof in different sub-coating layers the benefit of compartmentalizing the functional effects of the two particles for independent optimization of their unique respective characteristics as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou remains as applied to claim 16. Zhou does not appear to teach the secondary battery as a subcomponent of an electric device.
In the battery art, Lee teaches an electric device, comprising a secondary battery (“mobile phone”, paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ the secondary battery of Zhou in an electric device for the benefit of making real world use of the battery as taught by Lee.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707) and Shi (US 2005/0014063).
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707), Shi (US 2005/0014063) and Lee (US 2014/0322586).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou teaches a separator comprising two porous base films joined by a coating layer, but does not appear to teach wherein a melting point of the first porous base film is different from a melting point of the second porous base film.
In the battery art, Shi teaches that a battery separator may be configured to include a microporous membrane [a kind of base film], an adhesive layer and a nonwoven flat sheet [a different kind of base film] (paragraph [0011]), with the nonwoven flat sheet included for having high temperature melt integrity (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace one of the porous base films with a nonwoven flat sheet, having a melting point different from the first porous base film, for the benefit of improving the high-temperature integrity of the separator as taught by Shi.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou remains as applied to claim 10. Zhou further teaches wherein the melting point of the first porous base film is denoted as Tm1, and the melting point of the second porous base film is denoted as Tm2, such that the separator satisfies: 1.05 < Tmi/Tm2< 2.50, and/or 160 ºC< Tmi< 350 °C 120 ºC< Tm2< 180 0C (paragraph [0021] teaches the porous films may be formed from polypropylene, which has a melting temperature of about 160 ºC*).
*As supporting evidence, see Amin-Sanayei (US 2022/0298313) which teaches that conventional polypropylene separators have a melting point of about 160-165 ºC at paragraph [0006].
Regarding claim 12, Zhou and Shi remain as applied to claim 10. The limitations of claim 12 are obvious in view of Lee as previously described in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707) and Reinartz (US 2023/0231231).
Regarding claim 13-14, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein each base film may have a thickness within the range of 2 to 12 μm (paragraphs [0007, 0094]), but does not appear to teach wherein the thickness of the first and second base films satisfy W1/W2 > 1.02.
However, it has been held that it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Here, there is no evidence that the condition W1/W2 > 1.02 imparts an unexpected advantage in performance compared to an embodiment wherein W1=W2, in the context of claim 1
Moreover, in the battery art, Reinartz teaches it known that microporous layers of a laminate separator may be of “different thicknesses” as an obvious alternative to a same thickness as a matter of design choice (Fig. 1; paragraph [0010, 0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the separator of Zhou such that the two base films have different thicknesses, as this modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known element (base layers having the same thickness as in Zhou or Reinartz Figure 1 left embodiment) for another known element (base layers having different thickness as in Reinartz Figure 1 right embodiment) to yield predictable results, either embodiment provides a functional separator; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. It is noted that the cited art does not expressly teach the numerical range W1/W2 > 1.02; however, Reinartz general teaching of different thicknesses is found to reasonably suggest the claimed range as the claimed range the skilled artisan would have no reason to limit the “different thicknesses” suggestion of Reinartz to those value that are less than 2% difference, which is only a small subset of the possible variation suggested by “different thicknesses”.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2020/0303707), or alternatively over Zhou (US 2020/0303707) in view of Adachi (US 2022/0102811), Cho (US 2016/0226045) and Lee (US 2022/0311092).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou is silent as to wherein the separator satisfies each of conditions (1) to (6): (1) a machine direction thermal shrinkage of the separator is less than or equal to 1.0% at 250 0C for 1 hour;(2) a transverse direction thermal shrinkage of the separator is less than or equal to 1.0% at 250 0C for 1 hour;(3) an air permeability of the separator is less than or equal to 500 s/100cc;(4) a machine direction tensile strength of the separator is greater than or equal to 600 kg/cm2;(5) a transverse direction tensile strength of the separator is greater than or equal to 1000 kg/cm2; and (6) an ionic conductivity of the separator ranges from 0.5 mS/cm to 2.0 mS/cm.
However, the recited limitations are properties of a battery separator which are a consequence of the structure of the separator. Since the Zhou separator includes the positively claimed structure, absent any evidence to the contrary, the same properties are expected. Therefore, the invention of claim 1 is unpatentable over Zhou.
Alternatively, as to (1) and (2), Zhou does teach the separator configured such that heat shrinkage is “prevented” or at least reduced (paragraph [0034]). Therefore, the achievement of the low thermal shrinkage values which are claimed is found to be obvious over Zhou, particularly considering that there is no lower limitation on the claimed ranges which are therefore aspirational rather than ranges which would only be achieved by applicant’s enabling invention.
As to (3), in the battery art, Adachi teaches a separator (paragraphs [0003-0004]), wherein the separator is configured to have a permeability of 500 s/100 cc or less for the benefit of facilitating suitable mobility of ions (paragraph [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the separator of Zhou to have an air permeability of the separator is less than or equal to 500 s/100cc for the benefit of facilitating suitable mobility of ions as taught by Adachi.
As to (4) and (5), in the battery art, Cho teaches that it is desirable to configure a separator to have high tensile strength for the benefit of improvidng dimensional properties of a battery such as impact resistance (paragraph [0004]). Cho further teaches that machine and transverse direction tensile strengths of 1500 kgf/cm2 or higher are desirable (paragraph [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the separator of Zhou to have machine direction and transverse direction tensile strengths of greater than or equal to 600 kg/cm2; and 1000 kg/cm2, respectively in order to provide the battery with good mechanical properties and/or impact resistance as taught by Cho.
As to (6), in the battery art, Lee teaches that a high ionic conductivity for a separator is desirable and associated with improved properties such as output-energy density and good cycle characteristics (paragraphs [0042-0043; 0062]), and teaches that such a desirable ionic conductivity may be 0.3 ms/cm or more (paragraph [0038]), or 0.5 mS/cm or more and 2.0 mS/cm or less (paragraph [0189]; Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the separator of Zhou to have an ionic conductivity in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 mS/cm for the benefit of providing a battery comprising the separator with favorable electrochemical properties as taught by Lee.
Therefore, the invention of claim 15 is found to be obvious because the claimed limitations represent aspirational characteristics of a separator which were known to be desirable at the time of invention, and/or properties achieved with appropriate design in the prior art and taught by the art to be desirable to implement for certain known advantages.
Claims 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhou (US 2020/0303707) and Honda (US 2022/0200098).
Regarding claim 6 and 20, Zhou remains as applied to claim 1. Zhou further teaches coating layer may comprise a binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0008, 0045]), but does not appear to teach wherein the polyvinylidene fluoride is in the form of second particles.
In the battery art, Honda teaches that a coating layer may be provided by using binder in a particulate form for the benefit of providing a porous layer (paragraphs [0096-0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the binder of Zhou in a polymer form for the benefit of promoting porosity in the layer as taught by Honda. It is noted that polyvinylidene fluoride is electrochemically stable and therefore would not be expected to undergo oxidation and reduction reactions within an operating voltage range of a secondary battery.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Lee (USP 9698396) separator comprising a porous substrate and two coating layers
Geng (CN 108448160) separator comprising multiple layers
Song (US 2021/0408526) separator including molybdenum disulfide
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights