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
In response to the amendment received December 4, 2025:
Claims 19 and 38 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 3-18, 20-37, and 39-43 are pending with claims 3-18, 20-24, and 39-42 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 4, 2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 25-29, 31, 33, 37, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0157109 (Ino et al.) in view of WO 2016/010600 (Arnold et al.), US 2011/0003209 (Katayama ‘209), and US 2019/0181459 (Zhang et al.).
As to claim 25, Ino et al. teach a battery cell assembly, comprising:
a first electrode (battery has anode and cathode (para 0004, 0085));
a second electrode (battery has anode and cathode (para 0004, 0085)); and
a separator between the first and the second electrode (battery has separator between anode electrode and cathode electrode) (para 0004, 0085));
wherein:
the separator comprises a first layer comprising metal oxide, metal hydroxide, or metal oxyhydroxide fibers (fibrous materials, inorganic materials such as alumina (Al2O3) (metal oxide) embodied) (para 0029), the first layer being directly deposited on the first electrode (use in a battery has the separator between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, thus deposition on the first electrode (via sandwiched structure) is achieved) (para 0004, 0085);
a thickness of the separator is 20 µm (see table 2);
the metal oxide (alumina) are characterized by diameters in the range from around 3 nm to around 2 microns (1 micrometer or less preferable, but 0.1-5 µm taught (para 0029-0030)) (overlaps claimed range, thus renders the claimed range obvious) and aspect ratios in the range from around 20 to around 100,000 (large aspect ratios embodied; specific example has fibers with a diameter of 0.7 µm and a length of 3 mm, yielding an aspect ratio of 4,285.7, which lies within the claimed range) (para 0029, 0055)).
Ino et al. do not teach (a) that the separator is directly deposited on the first electrode via casting or spray-drying, (b) a thickness of the separator ranges between about 0.5 to about 10 µm (as Ino et al. teach a separator of 20 µm (table 2)), or (c) the separator exhibits a pore exclusion size in a range from about 10 nm to about 1 µm.
.
With respect to (a): Arnold et al. teach that a separator can be cast/extruded as a free standing film, cured against a release film, or cured directly on the cathode, anode, or electrolyte (para 038, 0162). The substitution of casting and curing directly on the cathode and anode (one of the electrode constituting the first electrode) (taught by Arnold et al. (para 037, 0162)) for another method of making the separator as applied to the membrane electrode assembly (i.e. sandwiching a separator that has been formed (i.e. free standing, cured on a release film) recognized by Arnold et al. (para 037, 0162) and Ino et al. (para 0004, 0085 – sandwiched structure formed)) would yield the predictable result of forming a separator directly deposited on a first electrode, wherein the substituted processes of making and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute casting and curing directly on the cathode and anode (one of the electrode constituting the first electrode) for another method of making the separator as applied to the membrane electrode assembly (i.e. sandwiching a separator that has been formed (i.e. free standing, cured on a release film), such that the sandwiched structure formed), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of forming a separator directly deposited on a first electrode, wherein the substituted processes of making and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Katayama ‘209 in the same filed of endeavor teach of a separator (recognizing using fibrous alumina; title, para 0038-0039). Specifically, a separator should be more preferably be between 5 and 20 µm thick (para 0089). The motivation for having a separator with a thickness between 5-20 µm in the most preferable range is to provide a separator sufficient strength for handling and short-circuit prevention, while enhancing the energy density of the battery (para 0089) (overlaps the claimed invention as well as primary reference Ino et al.). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use a separator having a thickness between 5-20 µm to provide a separator sufficient strength for handling and short-circuit prevention, while enhancing the energy density of the battery. Additionally, Katayama ‘209 sets forth that separator thickness (between 5-20 µm in a more preferable range) is a result effective variable, as the thickness affects strength and handling (lower range is weaker) and energy density (higher range provides less energy density), which has been set forth by the office to be obvious. See MPEP 4144.05(II).
With respect to (c), Zhang et al. teach of an ion-conductive membrane (same purpose of a battery separator), wherein pore size exclusion can be used to allow passage of desired ions/exclude passage of undesired ions to improve selectivity and improve performance of the membrane (para 0010-0011). Thus, Zhang et al. sets forth that pore exclusion size is a result effective variable parameter, as Zhang et al. recognizes pore exclusion size affects selectivity and performance of an ion-conductive membrane (para 0010-0011), thus the value of pore exclusion size (i.e. in a range from about 10 nm to about 1 µm) is viewed to be discovery of a workable range via routine experimentation, which has been held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP §2144.05(II). Again, the basis this characteristic being routine experimentation lies in the fact that Zhang et al. sets forth that pore size exclusion is used improve selectivity and performance regarding ion-conductivity (para 0010-0011), and thus discovery of sufficient a specific tensile strength (in a range from about 10 nm to about 1 µm) to achieve a desired selectivity and performance of the separator is merely discovery of workable ranges/routine optimization. (Note: Although Zhang et al.’s invention is drawn towards a different type of cell; the membrane is still drawn towards an ion-conductive layer. Thus, the principles taught therein are applicable to Ino et al.)
As to claim 26, Ino et al. teach the ceramic-comprising separator layer is implemented as a coating on one or more of an anode electrode, a cathode electrode, or a separator membrane of the separator (as Ino et al. recognizes that a separator is imposed between a positive and negative electrode (and thus would be implemented as a coating on an electrode) (para 0004, 0085). Thus, at the very least, a second layer comprising the metal oxide, the metal hydroxide, or the metal oxyhydroxide fibers, the second layer being deposited on the first layer is appreciated/rendered obvious (for non-limiting example, when the coating is implement on both the anode electrode and cathode electrode, and the battery is formed therein). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the separator (to have a second layer comprising the metal oxide, the metal hydroxide, or the metal oxyhydroxide fibers, the second layer being deposited on the first layer), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 27, Ino et al. teach the ceramic-comprising separator layer is implemented as a coating on one or more of an anode electrode, a cathode electrode, or a separator membrane of the separator (as Ino et al. recognizes that a separator is imposed between a positive and negative electrode (and thus would be implemented as a coating on an electrode) (para 0004, 0085). Thus, at the very least, a two-layered separator is appreciated/obvious (for non-limiting example, when the coating is implemented on both the anode electrode and cathode electrode, and the battery is formed therein). Accordingly, the separator (of claim 25) is not a stand-alone separator layer (as two layers are rendered obvious).
As to claim 28, Ino et al. teach recognizes alumina as the metal oxide fibers (para 0029). This comprise from around 2 at. % to around 40 at. % of aluminum (Al) (as alumina is Al2O3 (2 atoms of Al out of a total of 5 atoms, yielding 40 at% (2/5*100%)).
As to claim 29, Ino et al. teaches the separator comprises polymer (binder, polymeric materials) in the range from around 0.1 wt. % to around 50 wt. % (1 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight, thus 1-20 wt. %) (para 0041-0042) (lie within claimed range)).
As to claim 31, Ino et al.’s polymer is a binder (para 0041).
As to claim 33, Ino et al. teach a porosity of the separator ranges from around 25.0 vol. % to around 85.0 vol. % (70% exemplified; para 0063; see para 0048-0049 for volume basis).
As to claim 37, one of Ino et al.’s base teachings is that the separator must have sufficient strength (para 0044 and para 0045 (reason for adding binder)). Ino et al. do not specifically teach that the separator exhibits tensile strength in the range from around 1 MPa to around 1,000 MPa. However, the tensile strength constitutes a result effective variable parameter, as Ino et al. recognizes that the separator must have sufficient strength (para 0044-0045), thus the value of tensile strength is viewed to be discovery of a workable range via routine experimentation, which has been held to be obvious by the Office; see MPEP §2144.05(II). Again, the basis this characteristic being routine experimentation lies in the fact that Ino et al.’s separator must have sufficient strength (para 0044-0045), and thus discovery of sufficient a specific tensile strength (strength in the range from around 1 MPa to around 1,000 MPa) to achieve a sufficient, desired strength is merely discovery of workable ranges/routine optimization.
As to claim 43, the combination renders obvious the battery cell assembly of claim 25 (see the rejection to claim 25 for full details of the rejection, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). Additionally, Ino et al. teach that the separator is used in a nonaqueous electrolyte battery, wherein the electrolyte is held in the separator by injected therein (para 0044, 0053, 0085).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. in view of Arnold et al., Katayama ‘209, and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 25 and claim 29 above, further in view of US 201/0015530 (Katayama ‘530).
As to claim Ino et al. teach using polymers for the separator, binders including materials such as EVA, carboxymethyl, hydroxyethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl butyral, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, and polyurethane (para 0041-0042).
Ino et al. do not teach that the polymer has a melting point in a range of about 70 to about 120 °C.
However Katayama ‘530 in the same field of endeavor teaches a separator including inorganic materials (such as Al2O3; para 0079). Additionally, resin A, which may be a binder, has a melting point of 80-140 °C is used therein; materials include EVA, carboxymethyl, hydroxyethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl butyral, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, and polyurethane (para 0012, 0088-0089) (overlaps claimed range thus renders it obvious). The motivation for using polymeric materials (binders) with a melting point of 80-140 °C within a separator is to have a separator with superior reliability, superior safety, and superior load characteristics (para 0016). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use polymeric materials (binders) with a melting point of 80-140 °C within a separator is to have a separator with superior reliability, superior safety, and superior load characteristics.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. in view of Arnold et al., Katayama ‘209, and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of US 2012/0003524 (Jo et al.)
As to claim 32, Ino et al. do not teach that the metal oxide, the metal hydroxide, or the metal oxyhydroxide fibers are bonded to each other by sintering or by chemical bonding.
However, Jo et al. in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a separator with fibrous metal oxides (such as SiO2 or Al2O3) (title; para 0042). Specifically, one manner of making the separator is sintering the metal oxide material (para 0031, 0078-0080; fig. 4). The motivation for using a sintered metal oxide fibrous porous body (metal oxide fibers bonded to each other by sintering) as a separator is to have a separator with high heat stability (para 0078-0080). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) use a sintered metal oxide fibrous porous body (metal oxide fibers bonded to each other by sintering) as a separator to have a separator with high heat stability.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. in view of Arnold et al., Katayama ‘209, and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of in view of WO 2016/028989 (Yen).
As to claim 34, Ino et al. teaches that scaly particles may be porous in order to increase the whole porosity of the separator, wherein if the porosity of the separator is less than 70%, the amount of electrolyte decreases, and ion conductivity decreases, which increases resistance (para 0044). At the very least, Ino et al. suggests/renders obvious including porosity within Ino et al.’s materials in general, which would include the metal oxide fibers. The motivation for including pores within Ino et al.’s materials that make up the separator, including the metal oxide fibers, is to increase the whole porosity of the separator, specifically to 70% or greater in order to increase the electrolyte amount and ion conductivity, which decreases resistance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to include pores within Ino et al.’s materials that make up the separator (as taught by Ino et al. in general as applied to the scaly particles) and apply this concept to Ino et al.’s metal oxide fibers, in order to increase the whole porosity of the separator, specifically to 70% or greater in order to increase the electrolyte amount and ion conductivity, which decreases resistance.
Ino et al. do not teach a total open pore volume among the metal oxide fibers in the range from around 0.01 cm3/g to around 1 cm3/g.
However, Yen teaches the inclusion of inorganic oxides in separators, wherein a pore volume is about 0.01-1 mL/g (cm3/g) (p 17, lines 9-23). The motivation for having a separator (with an inorganic oxide) that has a pore volume is about 0.01-1 mL/g is to improve the porosity and rate of swelling of the product (p 17, lines 9-23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a pore volume of the separator be about 0.01-1 mL/g (cm3/g) in order to improve the porosity and rate of swelling.
Claim 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. in view of Arnold et al., Katayama ‘209, and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of US 2016/0164099 (Wang et al.).
As to claim 35, Ino et al. teach that the separator separates an anode electrode from a cathode electrode as used in a battery (battery has separator between anode electrode and cathode electrode) (para 0004, 0085).
Ino et al. do not teach that the anode composition is around 3 wt.% to around 70 wt. % of Silicon (Si).
However, Wang et al. teach that an anode with 30-50% weight silicon (in conjunction with a gel polymer binder) (within claimed range) (claim 13). The motivation for using Wang et al.’s Si anode (having 30-50% weight silicon in conjunction with a gel binder) is to improves electrochemical performance with respect to columbic efficiency, cyclability, and rate performance (para 0014; claim 13). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use a Si anode having 30-50% weight silicon in conjunction with a gel binder in order to improves electrochemical performance with respect to columbic efficiency, cyclability, and rate performance.
Claim 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. in view of Arnold et al., Katayama ‘209, and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 25 above, further in view of US 2016/0190640 (Visco et al.).
As to claim 36, Ino et al. do not teach that the separator exhibits a minimum bending radius in the range from around 0.1 mm to around 3 cm.
However, Visco et al. teaches insight regarding (minimum) bending radius – the minimum radius of the art at the bending position where the sheet reaches a maximum deflection before kinking, damaging, or breaking (para 0139). Specifically, a bending radius less than 2.5 cm (overlaps claimed range) indicates suitability for use in a folded or wound cell (para 0139). The motivation for wanting a minimum bending radius of less than 2.5 cm is to produce a separator that is suitable for use in a folded or wound cell (para 0139). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the separator have a minimum bending radius of less than 2.5 cm, in order to have a separator that is suitable for use in a folded or wound cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Arnold is not directed towards a fibrous separator and is drawn to particulate matter.
Examiner submits that it is unclear how a known method of making a separator would not be obvious/applicable due to differently shaped materials (fibrous versus particulate). The general teaching is towards forming a separator. Applicant provides no proof or reasoning as to why it would not be obvious (with predictable results) to form a separator on an electrode to achieve the membrane electrode assembly structure (rather than forming the separate parts separately and putting them together to form the same structure). Thus, the combination properly renders obvious the claim limitation to which it is applied.
Applicant argues that Zhang et al. teaching regarding pore exclusion size indicates a smaller diameter range than the claimed range and is drawn towards a different type of cell, so a POSITA would not know how to apply the principle to a Li-ion battery.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous rejection, as reiterated in the current rejection, recognizes that Zhang et al. is drawn to a different type of cell. However, the membrane is still an ion-conductive layer. Accordingly, the general teaching Zhang et al. (regarding allowing for desired ion passage and blocking passage of undesired ions) is applicable to that of a Li-ion battery (as in the primary reference). As applicant recognizes in p12 12 of the remarks – the desired function is to prevent crossover of larger vanadium ions (including vanadium oxide ions) while allowing for crossover of smaller protons. Protons are smaller than lithium ions, and thus a POSITA would expect that Zhang et al.’s teaching is to a smaller pore size than that applicable to a lithium ion and would be able to adjust the size accordingly to allow for lithium ion transport (applying the general teaching of Zhang et al. to a lithium ion battery). Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the instant application’s teaching (drawn towards dendrite prevention) is not drawn towards pore size exclusion to allow for desired ions/exclude passage of undesired ions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the instant application’s teaching is drawn towards dendrite prevention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, the core of Zhang et al.’s teaching is applicable to the combination set forth above (lithium-ion batteries), as the teaching is allow desired ions for electrochemical purposes and not allowing larger structures to pass through. It is unsure why this general teaching is not applicable to preventing undesired dendrite growth (i.e. pass through). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759