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 .
Status of Application
Claim 1 is amended, claim 3 is cancelled, and claims 18-19 are new claims, submitted on November 7, 2025. Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-19 are presented for examination.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
As laid out under 112 (d) rejection to claim 9 on P4 of the non-final Office Action mailed on 8/30/2023, the value of T1/T2 should be less than 1 by default. Based on the information disclosed in paragraphs [0098], the definition of T2 is “the total thickness of the separator, in both a single-layer structure and a multilayer structure, including the height of the above -described convex-shaped pattern,” so that it is logical to draw a conclusion that T1/T2 should be less than 1 by default.
The instant disclosure in Para [0012] under section [9], “wherein the value of T1/T2 is 10 or less” should read “wherein the value of T1/T2 is 1 or less”; and
Similarly, in Para [0062], “The upper limit therefore is preferably 10 or less, more preferably 9 or less, still more preferably 8 or less” should read “The upper limit therefore is less than 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, Ln 11, ”is 0.45 or more and 8 or less” should read “is 0.45 or more and less than 1” for the same reason set forth above. Based on the information disclosed in paragraphs [0098], the definition of T2 is “the total thickness of the separator, in both a single-layer structure and a multilayer structure, including the height of the above -described convex-shaped pattern,” so that it is logical to draw a conclusion that T1/T2 should be less than 1 by default. In this way, claim 9 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 invention, which inherently includes the limitation of T1/T2 is less than 1” as set forth above.
Accordingly, dependent claim 9 would be considered a substantial duplicate of claim 1 upon claim 1 being corrected as noted.
Further, in the last Ln of claim 1, “the air permeability S1 is 255 seconds or less” should read “the air permeability S1 is 255 seconds/100 mL or less” based on description in Para [0022] of the instant disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4-5 and 9-19 are 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 1 in Ln 12-15, recites “the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped patterns porous layer is two times or more the compressive modulus of a layer having the lowest compressive modulus in the layers constituting the substrate”, which contains a broad range of “two time or more”, and a relatively narrower range of between 10.78 to 15.12 calculated based on recitation in Ln 16-20 “the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped patterns layer is within the range of 1.1 x 103 Mpa to 1.3 x 103 Mpa, and the compressive modulus of the layer having the lowest compressive modulus in the layers constituting the substrate is within the range of 86 Mpa to 102 Mpa.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set for the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. [MPEP 2173.05(c)]. Claim 1 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature inherently introduced by a narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required; or (b) a required feature of the claim. For examination purposes, the broader recitation of Ln 12-15 is considered as if being deleted.
Claims 4-5 and 9-19 dependent from claim 1, are rejected for incorporating the indefinite subject matter from its base claim, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 1 is objected to but would be allowable if objections and the 35 USC § 112 (b) rejections set forth above are overcome.
With the amendment submitted on November 7, 2025, the closest prior art is considered to be
Sako (US 20100129720 A1), Homma (JP 2016184710 A), and Lane (US 20200335759 A1).
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable claim 19.
The invention of claim 1 is directed to a separator comprising a laminate structure of a substrate comprising a plurality of layers including a polyolefin microporous membrane layer, and a convex-shaped patterns porous layer having a plurality of convex-shaped patterns being independently laminated on at least one main surface of the substrate, with the value of T1/T2, the height of the convex-shaped patterns (T1) over the total thickness of the separator (T2), being 0.45 or more and 8 or less; the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped patterns layer is within the range of 1.1 x 103 Mpa to 1.3 x 103 Mpa, and the compressive modulus of the layer having the lowest compressive modulus in the layers constituting the substrate is within the range of 86 Mpa to 102 Mpa; a content of the inorganic particles or resin fine particles is 80 weight% or more and 99.99 weight% or less per 100 weight% of the convex-shaped patterns porous layer, and air permeability S1/S2 of a portion having the convex-shaped patterns to that of a non-pattern part of the separator is 0.8 or more and 5 or less and S 1 is 255 seconds or less.
Sako discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane may be a multiple layer of membrane obtained by laminating a plurality of sheets including an embossed sheet prepared and then stretching the laminate ([0097]), and a plurality of convex-shaped patterns (protrusions, [0045]) on at least one main surface of the substrate ([0045]) with T1/T2 being 0.4 (Example 17, Table 1), falling out of the claimed range of 0.45 or more and 8 or less. Homma teaches a thickness of protrusion alone: 4 µm ([0077]), thus Sako in view of Homma is calculated to have T1/T2 to be 0.44, so mathematically close to the claimed lower end of the claimed range that the difference between the claimed range is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. [MPEP 2144.05 (I)].
Sako has only shown Tensile strength of Ex. 17 to be 3750 kg/cm2 (MD) and 470 kg/cm2 (TD) which is multiple times smaller than the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped pattern layer as claimed, thus Sako does not discloses or suggest the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped pattern layer within the range of 1.1 x 103 Mpa to 1.3 x 103 Mpa. Further, modified Sako does not disclose or suggest a content of the inorganic particles or resin fine particles is 80 weight% or more and 99.99 weight% or less, per 100 weight% of the convex-shaped patterns porous layer; nor the air permeability S1/S2 of a portion having the convex-shaped patterns to that of a non-pattern part of the separator is 0.8 or more and 5 or less.
Homma does not teach or suggest those limitation, thus Homma does not cure the deficiency of Sako.
Lane merely teaches composite layer 22 contains inorganic particles 20%-98% by weight ([0144]), overlapping the claimed range of “80 weight% or more and 99.99 weight % or less per 100 weight% of the convex-shaped patterns porous layer”, with no disclosure or suggestion that the compressive modulus range of the convex-shaped layer is to be as claimed “the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped pattern layer is within the range of 1.1 x 103 Mpa to 1.3 x 103 Mpa”. Thus, Lane does not cure the deficiency of Sako either.
Further regarding air permeability limitations, Sako merely discloses a generally broad air permeability of the porous layer ranging from 59 sec to 3660 sec (Ex. 1-Ex.23, Table 1), or an air permeability range of from 1 to 450 sec ([0015]) or as low as 340 sec/100 cc or less can be achieved ([0056]). Therefore, modified Sako alone or in combination of Homma and Lane does not disclose or suggest S1/S2 the air permeability ratio of a portion having the convex-shaped patterns to that of a non-pattern part of the separator is 0.8 or more and 5 or less, and the air permeability S1 is 255 seconds or less.
The closest prior art taken individually and/or in combination fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the combined claim limitations of claim 1.
On the other hand, the instant disclosure provides that Examples 1-5 shown in Table 1, would generate unexpectedly results of: 1) enhanced cycle characteristics of the cells due to improved capacity retention rate; and 2) improved safety due reduced displacement of electrode laminate thus suppressed winding deviation ([0013] [0172] and Table 2). Table 1 data is commensurate in scope with claim 1, because T1/T2 is 0.45 or more and 8 or less, the compressive modulus of the convex-shaped pattern layer is within the range of 1.1 x 103 Mpa to 1.3 x 103 Mpa, and the compressive modulus of the lowest layer is within the range of 86 Mpa to 102 Mpa, S1/S2 is 0.8 or more and 5 or less, and S1 is 255 seconds or less.
Therefore claim 1 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 10-19 are indicated as allowable for incorporating the allowable subject matter from claim 1.
Examiner notes: Dependent claim 9 needs to be cancelled as set forth in claim objections section.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/5/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/12/2026