Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/760,813

Separation Membrane for Electrochemical Device, Electrochemical Device Comprising Same Separation Membrane, and Method for Manufacturing Same Separation Membrane

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 16, 2022
Examiner
ZEMUI, NATHANAEL T
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
257 granted / 458 resolved
-8.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
520
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 458 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered Status of Claims Claims 1 & 15 are amended. Claims 2-3, 5, 10, 12-14 & 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-18 & 20-23 are currently pending. 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, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-18 & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohata (US 2006/0216608 A1) in view of Yeou (US 2015/0200399 A1). Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-18 & 20-23, Ohata teaches an electrochemical device comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a free-standing separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, wherein the separator excludes a separator substrate formed of a polymer resin film and includes an insulating porous layer alone having a thickness of 10 microns to 30 microns and comprising 90 wt% of inorganic particles such as Al2O3 having an average particle diameter of 0.01 microns to 0.5 microns; and 1.48 wt% to 7.41 wt% of a binder resin including 20 wt% to 80 wt% of an elastomer (with an exemplary embodiment H2 using 20 wt% elastomer in the binder) such as a rubber including acrylonitrile ([0056]-[0060], [0068]-[0070], [0072]-[0074], [0077]-[0079], [0105], [0132]-[0134] & [0199]; Tables 3 & 5), wherein the elastomer has molecular weight of 300,000 g/mol as evidenced by Yeou ([0113]). “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)”. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Ohata is silent as to the elastomer having a molecular weight (Mw) of 600,00 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. Yeou teaches a battery comprising a separator comprising an insulating porous layer comprising inorganic particles and a binder ([0099]-[0100] & [0107]), wherein the binder comprises a fluoropolymer such as PVDF and a nonfluoropolymer including a repeating unit derived from an acryl monomer and a repeating unit derived from an olefin monomer ([0042]-[0052]) or a repeating unit derived form a nitrile monomer such as acrylonitrile and a linear alkylene monomer such as 1,3-butadiene ([0058]-[0060]) which reads on the claimed nitrile butadiene rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a nitrile butadiene rubber having a molecular weight (Mw) of 100,00 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol because such as material is known to be suitable for a binder which can be combined with a filler to form a freestanding separator for a battery as taught by Yeou ([0020], [0057]-[0060] & [0099]-[0100]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further include a nonfluoropolymer including a repeating unit derived from an acryl monomer and a repeating unit derived from an olefin monomer such as poly(propylene-acrylate), reading on the claimed olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, along with the nitrile butadiene rubber employed in Ohata as a suitable binder for forming a free-standing separator composed of inorganic particles and a binder. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.06 I. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Ohata as modified by Yeou does not fairly teach or suggest the subject matter of claims 1 & 15, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above updated rejection of claims 1 & 15, Yeou discloses a separator comprising an insulating porous layer including a nonfluoropolymer such as poly(propylene-acrylate) and a nitrile butadiene rubber. While Yeou does not explicitly teach binder compositions including mixtures of different nonfluoropolymers, it is noted that the combination of two separate compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, is found to be obvious. “[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.06 I. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-18 & 20-23 stand rejected. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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. /NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 16, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 05, 2024
Interview Requested
Nov 14, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 14, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 22, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 10, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597636
SOLID-STATE COMPOSITE POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE AND ALL-SOLID-STATE LITHIUM ION BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586875
METHOD FOR PRODUCING LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES, IN PARTICULAR HIGH-POWER BATTERIES, AND BATTERY OBTAINED BY THIS METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573657
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573665
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ALL SOLID-STATE LITHIUM BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573626
NICKEL COBALT LITHIUM MANGANESE CATHODE MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF AND LITHIUM ION BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+25.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 458 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month