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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 6/23/2026 have been entered.
102 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner Notes
Claim 1 has been amended to state “a metal compound to a peripheral edge portion of an upper surface”. Addition of the term “peripheral” is redundant. A synonym of “edge” is “periphery”. Hence, for purposes of examination, examiner considers that the metal compound is applied to the edge portion of the upper surface of the ceramic coating layer.
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 1,2,3,7,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20160011127 A1) as evidenced by Shackelford et al (2015) “CRC Materials Science and Engineering Handbook (4th Edition) - 2.1 Physical Properties”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Li teaches a method for producing a separator for a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0012, 0018), the separator being interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0012),
Li teaches preparing a separator substrate (microporous membrane 16; Paragraph 0028); forming a ceramic coating layer (x-ray detectable material such as metal oxides having a metal selected from the group consisting of Zn, Ti, Mn, Ba, Ni, W, Hg, Si, Cs, Sr, Ca, Rb, Ta, Zr, Al, Pb, Sn, Sb, Cu, Ni, and Fe; Paragraph 0027). These types of metal oxides are well-known ceramics, as evidenced by Shackelford et al, Page 344.
PNG
media_image1.png
39
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
39
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li teaches that the ceramic coating layer is formed by applying a first coating solution containing a ceramic material to a surface of the separator substrate (the x-ray detectable element 14 or 14′ may be applied to the membrane or layer; Paragraph 0039).
Furthermore, Li teaches that there is atleast one microporous membrane or layer 12’ which contains an x-ray detectable element 14’. This implies that there can be 2 layers of the x-ray detectable element of which one can be considered to be the ceramic coating layer as explained above, and the other can be a reaction layer. The second layer in Li matches the reaction layer of the claimed invention because the metal compound contained in the layer is the same as instant specification. Hence, since the composition of the layer is the same the second layer in Li would be capable of scattering X-rays directly on the ceramic coating layer.
The second layer of Li is formed by coating as well (as explained above based on Paragraph 0039). Li does not limit the application to an area other than the peripheral edge portion of an upper surface of the ceramic coating layer, and also states that the separator extends beyond the lateral edges of the electrodes (Paragraph 0033). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reaction layer is formed on a peripheral edge portion of an upper surface of the ceramic coating layer, the upper surface being opposite to the separator substrate, which is not in contact with the positive electrode and the negative electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to prevent the electrodes from coming into physical contact and prevent potential for short circuiting, and for x-ray examination of the electrodes (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 2,
Li teaches that X-ray material 14 may be a material selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal sulfate or salt such as barium sulfate (BaSO4) in Paragraph 0027. Metal oxides have a metal selected from the group consisting of Zn, Ti, Mn, Ba, Ni, W, Hg, Si, Cs, Sr, Ca, Rb, Ta, Zr, Al, Pb, Sn, Sb, Cu, Ni, and Fe. The listed compounds show overlap with the claimed metal oxide formed by a reaction between oxygen and at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pd, Ga, Sn, Ag, Cd, Ti, Cr, Mo, W, Nb, Zr, Y, Ce, Ta, and Hf, and at least one metal sulfide or metal sulfate formed by a reaction between sulfur or sulfuric acid and at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mo, Cu, W, Ti, In, Bi, Cd, Cs, Ba, and Fe.
Regarding Claim 3,
Li teaches the inorganic particles used in the claimed invention as shown above, but does not expressly teach the density of the metal compound being greater than 4.5 g/cm3. It is reasonable to presume that the density is inherent to Li. Support for said presumption is found in Shackelford et al (Page 344) with density values provided for the metal oxide ceramic compounds.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8,
Li teaches that the ceramic coating layer with the x-ray detectable element can be coated on the membrane or layer, or be applied to the membrane or layer (Paragraph 0039). This applies to both the ceramic coating layer and a second layer akin to the reaction layer. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ceramic coating layer and reaction layer formed on an upper surface or a side surface of the separator substrate in order to form a layer capable of being detected by x-ray.
Claims 4, 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as evidenced by Shackelford and in view of Yun et al (KR20200135181A; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4,
Li teaches a porous polymer membrane 12 has a coating including barium sulfate particles and a binder on one surface thereof. The weight percent of barium sulfate is preferably less than 20% by weight of the combined membrane and coating weight (Paragraph 0040). Li does not teach that the density of the reaction layer is 2.0 to 5.6 g/cm3.
However, Yun teaches a method of producing a separator (Paragraph 0154; membrane laminate) for a lithium battery that comprises a substrate for the separator (Paragraph 0155; polyethylene substrate), and an inorganic layer (Paragraph 0156; coating layer) formed by applying a coating solution containing an inorganic particle to at least one side of a polyethylene substrate (Paragraph 0157). The inorganic filler particles are cerium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide (Paragraph 0032). Yun teaches in the method of manufacturing an example that the coating solution comprised Al2O3 powder with PVdF as binder, and NMP as solvent. The solid content is 30% of total weight of solution, and the volume ratio of inorganic particles to binder is 6:1 (Paragraph 0156).
Estimating overall density of the layer based on the above ratios, the value lies within the claimed range of 2.0 to 5.6 g/cm3. Hence, by keeping the composition of Yun, the claimed density of the reaction layer can be achieved. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed reaction layer density in order to form a suitable coating layer on a substrate layer of the separator.
Regarding Claim 5,
Li does not specifically teach that the reaction layer thickness is 5 to 30 micron.
However, Yun teaches that the range of the inorganic particles is between 0.001 to 10 micron, and these particles impact the uniformity of the thickness of the coating layer. Yun also teaches controlling the thickness of the separator by adjusting the volume ratio of the inorganic particles and the binder within the range 1:99 to 99:1. As the volume of the inorganic particles increases relative to the binder, the porosity of the separator increases which results in an increase in the thickness of the separator (Paragraph 0046). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the reaction layer components in order to adjust the thickness of the separator layer (reaction layer) in order to reach the desired porosity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as evidenced by Shackelford, further in view of Saeki et al (WO 2020004205 A1; machine translation).
Li does not teach that the coating solution is applied in a linear, X-shaped or cross shaped pattern.
However, Saeki teaches a separator with a fine pattern. This pattern is preferably a lattice pattern (such as tetragonal or hexagonal arrangement), a line and space structure or other arrangements (Paragraph 0071; Figure 2). This is akin to a linear and X-shaped pattern as claimed. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the inorganic particle layer on the substrate with a pattern as claimed in order to obtain a lithium ion secondary battery with enhanced battery life characteristics, and safety (Paragraph 0030).
PNG
media_image2.png
472
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Yun includes an adhesive layer interposed between adjacent separators, and does not disclose forming a reaction layer directly on a ceramic coating layer at a peripheral edge portion. Examiner points to rejection of claim 1 above which now refers to the prior art of Li in order to show the ceramic coating layer and reaction layer on a substrate without the inclusion of any adhesive layer.
Applicant argues that Yun does not have support in the text for the reaction layer formed on the edge. Examiner points to rejection of Claim 1 above wherein Li teaches the presence of atleast one ceramic coating layer, which includes the presence of 2 layers. The second layer if formed on the surface of the first layer would be present on the peripheral edge portion as claimed. The claim as written does not preclude having the reaction layer on the entirety of the surface of the ceramic coating layer as long as it is present on the edge portion.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to the field of application.
Hashimoto et al (JP 2004014127 A)
Zhang et al (US 20090081535 A1)
Less Et al (US 20090155678 A1)
Shin et al (US 20140023930 A1)
Saito et al (US 20140308566 A1)
Kim et al (US 20150140402 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights