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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 2/13/2026 have been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from consideration.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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al (KR20200135181A; machine translation) as evidenced by Shackelford et al (2015) “CRC Materials Science and Engineering Handbook (4th Edition) - 2.1 Physical Properties”
Regarding Claim 1,
Yun teaches a method of producing a separator (Paragraph 0154; membrane laminate) for a lithium battery that comprises the following steps:
providing a substrate for the separator (Paragraph 0155; polyethylene substrate)
an inorganic layer (Paragraph 0156; coating layer) is 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) which 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
Yun also teaches the presence of N layers of the above type separator film with inorganic particles having various structures and compositions (Paragraph 0024-0026). This is akin to a reaction layer capable of scattering X-rays because the metal compound contained in the layer is the same as instant specification. N separator layers are formed by applying a coating liquid (Paragraph 0156; second coating solution) containing an inorganic filler (metal compound) to at least one side of the substrate. Figure 6 (annotated) below shows an embodiment where the separator layer with the inorganic particle coating exists on the edge portion, and is also not in contact with the anode or cathode.
PNG
media_image2.png
246
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Yun teaches that the N layers comprise inorganic particles (Paragraph 0032). The inorganic particles are cerium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, titanium oxide, yttrium oxide etc.
Regarding Claim 3,
Yun 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 Yun. Support for said presumption is found in Shackelford et al (Page 344) wherein the density of one of the compounds, cerium oxide, is 7.28 mg/m3 or g/cm3.
Regarding Claim 4,
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.
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.
Regarding Claim 7, and Claim 8
Yun teaches that a single sided separator having a structure in which an organic/inorganic composite porous coating layer is formed on one side of a polyolefin based substrate, and a double sided separator having a structure in which the organic/inorganic layer is formed on both sides of a polyolefin based substrate (Paragraph 0051). This is akin to having the ceramic coating on upper surface and reaction coating layer on lower surface of the separator substrate.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al.
Yun 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 Yun in view of Saeki et al (WO 2020004205 A1; machine translation).
Yun 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_image3.png
472
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/13/2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner has taken the position that the adhesive layer formed along the edge corresponds to the reaction layer formed on the edge portion of the upper surface of the ceramic coating layer. Examiner disagrees with this argument. It seems the applicant has misrepresented the rejection dated 11/13/2025. Examiner states that the separator layer as annotated in Figure 6 with the inorganic particle coating exists on the edge portion, and is also not in contact with the anode or cathode. Examiner does not state that the adhesive layer is the reaction layer. Examiner also points out that Claim 1 does not preclude applying the reaction layer coating to surface outside of the edge portion. Hence, the layer shown in Figure 6 of Yun depicts the reaction layer being applied to the edge portion (and other surface area).
Applicant argues that the application claims a sequential three layer structure within a single separator. Examiner disagrees with this argument. Claim 1 does not preclude having other intermediate layers between the ceramic layer and the reaction layer. The claim uses “comprising” term for the method steps. Yun includes other layers such as substrates and adhesive layers. However, overall Yun includes the structure of the claimed separator, and the method of coating the layers of the separator. Hence, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1.
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)
Li et al (US 20160011127 A1)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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