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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed December 17, 2025 have been entered. Claim 1 and 61 have been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in at least Figure 4. Claims 1,4-7,12,14,18-19,22-24,26-27,30,34-35,39,42-44,51-52,54,57,61 and 63-64 remain pending with claims 26-27,30,34-35,39,42-44,51-52,54 and 57 withdrawn. Claims 1,4-7,12,14,18-19,22-24,61 and 63-64 have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection and is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 14, 19, 23, 61 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno (Published Patent Application US 2015/0171396) in view of Ha et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0038025 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ha.
Regarding claim 1, Okuno teaches a coated separator for a lithium ion battery (“a polyamide-imide coated separator for a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Okuno teaches that the separator comprises: a microporous polymeric layer (“a microporous polymeric layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]); and a surface layer on the microporous layer. Okuno teaches that the surface layer may be made of a mixture of two or more resins (see e.g., paragraph [0059]), with a fluorine based resin such as polyvinylidene fluoride for oxidation resistance and flexibility and a polyamide-imide resin for heat resistance properties (“a polyamide-imide layer comprising polyamide-imide (PAI) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and being free from acrylics, and disposed on at least one side of the microporous polymeric layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059]) being exemplary.
Okuno teaches that the resin layer provides oxidation resistance (see e.g., paragraph [0059]), that the structure of the separator prevents short circuiting (see e.g., paragraph [0033]) and that the surface layer gives oxidation resistance, heat resistance, and mechanical strength to the separator (see e.g., paragraph [0065]), thereby providing the properties “adapted to provide oxidation resistance, block dendrite growth, add dimensional stability, reduce shrinkage, and to prevent electronic shorting at temperature above 200 °C.” The examiner notes that there is no quantification of the claimed properties, and thus the multilayer structure, corresponding to identical materials, will have the same properties.
Okuno also teaches that the separator may hold a non-aqueous electrolyte (“wherein said microporous polymeric layer is adapted to hold liquid electrolyte, to conduct ions, and/or to block ionic flow between an anode and ca cathode of a call or battery in an event of thermal runaway”) (see e.g., paragraph [0064]).
Okuno does not explicitly teach wherein said polyamide-imide layer has a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40.
However, Ha teaches a separator for a battery having a porous base material layer and a polymer coating layer formed on at least a surface of the base material, wherein the polymer coating layer includes a first fluorinated copolymer and a non-fluorinated polymer (see e.g., Abstract). Ha teaches the first fluorinated copolymer may be one selected from the group consisting of a polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g., paragraph [0033]) and the non-fluorinated polymer may ben one selected from the group consisting of a polyamide-imide copolymer (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Ha teaches a weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is in a range of 3:1 to 1:3 (see e.g., paragraph [0069]) because when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is greater than 3:1, the adhesive force may decrease, and when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is smaller than 1:3, a resistance of a formed battery may increase (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the ratio of the polyamide-imide and polyvinylidene fluoride of Okuno to be in the range of 3:1 to 1:3, as taught by Ha, in order to optimize the adhesive force of the layer and the resistance of a formed battery (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches the resin layers are porous (“wherein said polyamide-imide layer is semi-porous, microporous, mesoporous, microporous, and/or nanoporous”) (see e.g., paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 14, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches the resin layer may include inorganic fillers (“wherein said polyamide-imide layer further comprises other polymers, additives, fillers”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches the microporous layer is a polyolefinic member (“said microporous polymeric layer is a polyolefinic membrane”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 23, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, the separator of the claim 1 between the anode and cathode, and an electrolyte in ionic communication between the anode and the cathode via the separator (“a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery comprising: an anode containing lithium metal; a cathode; a separator according to claim 1 disposed between said anode and said cathode; and an electrolyte in ionic communication with said anode and said cathode via said separator”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 61, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches the layer contains PAI and PVDF (see e.g., paragraph [0065]) and are porous (“said polyamide-imide layer contains at least polyamide-imide and one or more other polymers or co-polymers, and may be porous”) (see e.g., paragraph [0201]) as discussed above.
Regarding claim 64, Okuno teaches a coated separator for a lithium ion battery (“a polyamide-imide coated separator for a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Okuno teaches that the separator comprises: a microporous polymeric layer (“a microporous polymeric layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0065]); and a surface layer on the microporous layer. Okuno teaches that the surface layer may be made of a mixture of two or more resins (see e.g., paragraph [0059]), with a fluorine based resin such as polyvinylidene fluoride for oxidation resistance and flexibility and a polyamide-imide resin for heat resistance properties (“at least one polyamide-imide layer, wherein the polyamide-imide layer comprises polyamide-imide (PAI) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and wherein the polyamide-imide layer is free from acrylics”) (see e.g., paragraph [0059]) being exemplary.
Okuno does not explicitly teach wherein said polyamide-imide layer has a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40.
However, Ha teaches a separator for a battery having a porous base material layer and a polymer coating layer formed on at least a surface of the base material, wherein the polymer coating layer includes a first fluorinated copolymer and a non-fluorinated polymer (see e.g., Abstract). Ha teaches the first fluorinated copolymer may be one selected from the group consisting of a polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g., paragraph [0033]) and the non-fluorinated polymer may ben one selected from the group consisting of a polyamide-imide copolymer (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Ha teaches a weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is in a range of 3:1 to 1:3 (see e.g., paragraph [0069]) because when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is greater than 3:1, the adhesive force may decrease, and when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is smaller than 1:3, a resistance of a formed battery may increase (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the ratio of the polyamide-imide and polyvinylidene fluoride of Okuno to be in the range of 3:1 to 1:3, as taught by Ha, in order to optimize the adhesive force of the layer and the resistance of a formed battery (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Claims 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno (Published Patent Application US 2015/0171396) in view of Ha et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0038025 A1), and further in view of Mizuno et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2015/0050542 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mizuno.
Regarding claim 5, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Okuno teaches the average pore size of the heat-resistant adhesive porous layer is preferably 10 nm or more from the viewpoint of ion permeability (see e.g., paragraph [0108]). However, Okuno does not explicitly teach that the heat-resistant adhesive porous layer is made porous by removing plasticizer, pore former, and/or particles from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and at least one of a plasticizer, pore former, particles, or combinations thereof.
However, Mizuno teaches a battery separator that includes a porous membrane A and a porous membrane B laminated on the porous membrane A, the porous membrane A including a polyolefin resin, the porous membrane B including a polyamide-imide resin and inorganic particles or cross-linked polymer particles (see e.g., Abstract). Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (“a pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0073]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, does not explicitly teach the heat-resistant adhesive porous layer may be made semi-porous or porous by removing at least some of the particles from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and particles, polyamide-imide, another polymer and particles, or polyamide-imide, polymers and particles.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (“a pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0073]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein: said particles are selected from PVDF, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), others that are ionically conductive, or mixtures thereof; inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are removed; said particles, including said inorganic or ceramic particles, are removed with one or more solvents; said particles, including said inorganic or ceramic particles, are removed with one or more solvents, wherein said one or more solvents are water, water-based solvents, HF, or mixtures thereof; inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are not removed; or said particles are solvent dissolvable particles or polymers, or are not solvent dissolvable particles or polymers.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (see e.g., paragraph [0073]), wherein the separation is caused by removing the membrane-forming solvent to obtain a porous membrane (“inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are removed”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein: said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing plasticizer from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and plasticizer; or said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing pore former from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and pore former.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (see e.g., paragraph [0073]), wherein the separation is caused by removing the membrane-forming solvent to obtain a porous membrane (“said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing pore former from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno (Published Patent Application US 2015/0171396) in view of Ha et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0038025 A1) and Mizuno et al. (Published U.S. Patent US 2015/0050542 A1), and further in view of Sugawara (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2017/0018749 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein before being removed said particles comprise between 20% to 80% by weight of the polyamide-imide and the particles combined.
However, Sugawara teaches a porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract). Sugawara teaches the porous separator is produced by removing the fine particles from a precursor film containing fine particles (see e.g., paragraph [0029]). Suguwara teaches the ratio of the components constituting the precursor film and the fine particles is in a range of 15:85 to 50:50 (see e.g., paragraph [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the surface layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, by utilizing fine particles in the range of 15:85 to 50:50, as taught by Suguwara, in order to porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratio of 15:85 to 50:50 overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 22, Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, does not explicitly teach said particles have an average particle size in the range of 0.001 to 10 microns.
Suguwara teaches the fine particles have an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less (see e.g., paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the surface layer of Okuno, as modified by Ha and Mizuno, by utilizing fine particles with an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less, as taught by Suguwara, in order to porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract).
it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno (Published Patent Application US 2015/0171396) in view of Ha et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0038025 A1), and further in view of Hamada (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2021/0057703).
Regarding claim 24, Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
While Okuno, as modified by Ha, teaches a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, the separator of claim 1 between the anode and cathode, and an electrolyte in ionic communication between the anode and the cathode via the separator (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Okuno, as modified by Ha, does not explicitly teach that the anode (negative electrode) can be a lithium alloy.
Hamada, like Okuno, teaches a separator for battery that includes a microporous substrate and resin layers deposited thereupon, with the resin layers including PAI and PVDF. Hamada teaches that the anode material may be a lithium alloy (see e.g., paragraph [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode of Okuno, as modified by Ha, with a lithium alloy, as taught by Hamada, as lithium alloys are taught as suitable active materials with similar separators such as those in Hamada.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0112050) in view of Ha et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0038025 A1).
Regarding claim 63, Hu teaches a polymer coated separator for batteries. As high energy and high voltage are not quantified, Hu meets the preamble limitations (high voltage properties are also taught in paragraph [0079]).n
Hu teaches the separator includes a solid state electrolyte and a polymer coating or layer (see e.g., Abstract). Hu teaches the polymer coating may include one or more polymers (see e.g., paragraph [0099]), which are not particularly limited and may include PVDF (see e.g., paragraph [0101]).
Hu does not explicitly teach that the polymeric layer may include PAI or have a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40.
However, Ha teaches a separator for a battery having a porous base material layer and a polymer coating layer formed on at least a surface of the base material, wherein the polymer coating layer includes a first fluorinated copolymer and a non-fluorinated polymer (see e.g., Abstract). Ha teaches the first fluorinated copolymer may be one selected from the group consisting of a polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g., paragraph [0033]) and the non-fluorinated polymer may be one selected from the group consisting of a polyamide-imide copolymer (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Ha teaches a weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is in a range of 3:1 to 1:3 (see e.g., paragraph [0069]) because when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is greater than 3:1, the adhesive force may decrease, and when the weight ratio of the first fluorinated copolymer to the non-fluorinated polymer is smaller than 1:3, a resistance of a formed battery may increase (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the polymer layer of Hu to include PAI and PVDF in the range of 3:1 to 1:3, as taught by Ha, in order to optimize the adhesive force of the layer and the resistance of a formed battery (see e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights