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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 “lithium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide” appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-6 are objected as a result of their dependence on claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20140287323 A1, “Lu”) in view of Suzuta et al. (US 20130149597 A1, “Suzuta”) and in view of Deng et al. (Kuirong Deng, et al., Nonflammable organic electrolytes for high-safety lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, Volume 32, 2020, Pages 425-447).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a battery separator for a lithium-ion battery cell (see [0089] “lithium ion batteries” & “membrane as defined herein as a separator in electrochemical cells such as a lithium battery”), said battery separator exhibiting counterions on the surface thereof (see [0109] describes “Li+ and Na+” & “X- an anion such as Cl-” & “in some embodiments, these salts are all lithium salts” which describes counterions; see [0091] “membrane” & “electrolyte immersion” & membrane has “good wettability for the electrolyte solution” & see [0108] describes “electrochemically active material may be a liquid electrolyte, such as a metal salt that is dissolved in an organic solvent and which is adapted to promote ion transport between the pos. and neg. electrodes” which describes counterions on the surface of the separator because ion transport occurs between the pos. and neg. electrode and the separator is placed between the pos. and neg. electrodes) subsequent to a caustic treatment of said battery separator with an aqueous or aprotic formulation (see [0103] “electrolyte solution” & “added by using the conventional methods when manufacturing lithium batteries”; see [0108] describes “liquid electrolyte” & see [0109] describes “typically a solution of an alkali metal salt, or combination of salts, dissolved in an aprotic solvent or solvents” describes caustic treatment due to the use of lithium salt and aprotic solvent describes aprotic formulation).
Regarding the limitation having a molarity of between 0.1 and 10 of at least one base selected from sodium hydroxide, Lu does not explicitly disclose.
Deng teaches molarity of lithium salt (see P437 “When lithium salt concentration of LEs is higher than a threshold (around 3-5M), all solvent molecules are coordinated with lithium ions and there are no free solvent molecules”; “hence, volatility of the solvents is dramatically reduced, leading to lower flammability of concentrated LEs. Corrosion of electrodes is suppressed due to no free solvent in concentrated LEs.” Deng teaches lithium-ion batteries (see Title).
Lu and Deng are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate molarity around 3-5M, as suggested by Deng (dee P437) into the battery separator of Lu because doing so reduces the volatility of the solvents which leads to lower flammability of the liquid electrolytes (LEs) and doing so improves the safety of the battery by reducing the risk of thermal runaway leading to explosion of the battery as suggested by Deng (see Abstract).
Regarding the limitation at least one base selected from sodium hydroxide, Lu does not explicitly disclose.
Suzuta teaches sodium hydroxide (see [0119] “sodium hydroxide is used for the purpose of improving etching effects” & see [0125] “degreasing treatment include acid degreasing and alkaline degreasing” & “examples of alkaline degreasing include methods using sodium hydroxide”). Suzuta teaches a lithium ion battery (see Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sodium hydroxide, as suggested by Suzuta into the battery separator of Lu because doing so improves etching effects, as suggested by Suzuta (see [0119]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 1, “subsequent to a caustic treatment of said battery separator”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding the limitation wherein said battery separator exhibits hydrofluoric acid scavenging properties, Lu discloses “acid scavengers” (see [0080]) & the specification of the instant invention on pages 1-2 describes “hydroscopic properties of LiPF6. The presence of water and moisture causes decomposition and subsequent formation of HF, which attacks and dissolves transition metals”. Lu discloses a similar electrolyte composition (see LiPF6 in [0060]) and HF acid is a decomposition product of the electrolyte. Lu discloses the separator with acid scavengers (see [0080]) which would exhibit the same properties such as hydrofluoric acid scavenging properties, upon decomposition of the electrolyte forming HF.
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses the battery separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein said battery separator is positioned between a cathode and an anode therein (see abstract “positive electrode, a negative electrode, and (I) a separator membrane disposed between said positive and negative electrodes”) and further discloses a battery comprising the battery separator (see [0089] “lithium battery containing the described membrane”).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses the battery separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein said counterions are applied during or subsequent to manufacture of said battery separator (see [0103] describes the electrolyte solution is added “(1) A method including injecting the electrolytic solution into a capsulated electrode assembly, which includes a cathode, an anode and a separator” which describes subsequent to manufacture & [0028] describes “Such a composite may be filled with the electrolyte and the conducting salt either before combining the layers or, preferably, after combining the layers, optionally after contacting the same with suitable discharge electrodes, e.g., a metal film, and may be even carried out after introducing the composite in a battery housing” which describes counterions are applied during or subsequent to manufacture of the battery separator).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses the battery separator of claim 3 and further discloses wherein said counterions are sodium ions (see [0109] “alkali metal cation” & “Na+” and describes “X- is an anion” which reads on counterions).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20140287323 A1, “Lu”) in view of Suzuta et al. (US 20130149597 A1, “Suzuta”) and Deng et al. (Kuirong Deng, et al., Nonflammable organic electrolytes for high-safety lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, Volume 32, 2020, Pages 425-447) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 8089746 B2, “Masuda”).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses the battery separator of claim 1 and further discloses “Tensile Properties” in Table 5, however, Lu does not explicitly disclose tensile strength of at least 35 MPa.
Suzuta teaches “if the tensile stress at the rupture point y is 200 MPa or more, since the film base material (A) is able to adequately withstand stress applied during deep drawing, the occurrence of cracks and other forming defects can be inhibited. Tensile stress at the rupture point y is preferably 250 MPa or more and more preferably 300 MPa or more” (see [0228]).
Suzuta teaches a range of 200 MPa or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 35 Mpa. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding the limitation and an air permeability greater than 65 Gurley s, Lu does not explicitly disclose.
Masuda teaches on P18 col 23 par 1 “When the Gurley permeability exceeds the above range, the permeation performance is insufficient and also the porosity is lowered in some cases. In addition, in the present invention, the lower the Gurley permeability, the higher the power density of an electric storage device tends to be made, for example, when a film is used as a separator of a lithium ion secondary electric storage device. However, when the Gurley permeability is too low, a film is frequently broken in its manufacturing step; as a result, film producibility is worsened, and in a subsequent processing step to an electric storage device, handling properties may be inferior in that the film is stretched, wrinkled, or broken. Thus, the Gurley permeability is preferably, for example, 10 sec/100 ml or more. The Gurley permeability is more preferably from 10 to 350 sec/100 ml, most preferably from 20 to 250 sec/100 ml”.
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the Gurley permeability is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improved film producibility. That makes the Gurley permeability a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the Gurley permeability and come up with greater than 65 Gurley s for the purpose of improving the film producibility.
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses a battery comprising the battery separator of claim 2 and further discloses wherein said battery separator is positioned between a cathode and an anode therein (see abstract “positive electrode, a negative electrode, and (I) a separator membrane disposed between said positive and negative electrodes”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P4 “nothing within Lu teaches any type of caustic treatment to impart certain counterions to a battery separator surface in order to provide hydrofluoric acid scavenging as now claimed” & “Lu is silent to anything pertaining to the utilization of an aprotic base formulation having specific hydroxide components” & “nothing within Lu depicts such compounds as imparting or dissociating such counterions under any caustic treatment as now claimed” & “none of the Lu electrolytes are hydroxides, either”, Suzuta teaches sodium hydroxide (see [0119] “sodium hydroxide is used for the purpose of improving etching effects” & see [0125] “degreasing treatment include acid degreasing and alkaline degreasing” & “examples of alkaline degreasing include methods using sodium hydroxide”). Suzuta teaches a lithium ion battery (see Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sodium hydroxide, as suggested by Suzuta into the battery separator of Lu because doing so improves etching effects, as suggested by Suzuta (see [0119]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 1, “subsequent to a caustic treatment of said battery separator”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
02/12/2026