Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/905,206

COMPOSITION, COMPOSITE SEPARATOR AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND LITHIUM ION BATTERY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 29, 2022
Examiner
VAN OUDENAREN, MATTHEW W
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
514 granted / 659 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
700
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.8%
+11.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/26 has been entered. Response to Amendment Currently, the pending Claims are 7-9, 12-26. The examined Claims are 7-9, 12-26, with Claim 7 being amended, and Claims 12-26 being newly added. Response to Arguments Applicant has mainly amended independent Claim 7 to require that the composite separator comprises the base material and a composition coated and cured on the surface of the base material, wherein the composition is structured in the instantly claimed manner. Applicant has also added dependent Claims 12-26 which mainly recite limitations cited (in both explicit terms or optional terms) in the 08/25/25 Claims. Applicant argues that in view of the aforementioned amendments to the Claims and the previous indication of allowable subject matter with respect to Claims 7-9 (as outlined in the 11/20/25 Final Rejection), Claims 7-9, 12-26 are in condition for allowance (Pages 6-12 of Remarks). While all previous prior art rejections of record are withdrawn, the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described below (which are present as a result of Applicant’s aforementioned amendments to the Claims) preclude allowance of Claims 7-9, 12-26. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: For sake of clarity, the phrase “a composite separator wherein an nanowire comprises a long nanowire and a short nanowire” should be written, for example, as “a composite separator comprising a nanowire, the nanowire comprising a long nanowire and a short nanowire.” Appropriate correction is required. For sake of clarity, the phrase “the polymer resin comprises the low melting point polymer and the high melting point polymer and the high melting point polymer” should be written as “the polymer resin comprises the low melting point polymer and the high melting point polymer.” Appropriate correction is required. For sake of clarity, the phrase “a weight ration” should be written as “a weight ratio.” Appropriate correction is required. For sake of clarity, the phrase “a melting point of the low melting point polymer is not higher 145°C” should be written as “a melting point of the low melting point polymer is not higher than 145°C.” Appropriate correction is required. For sake of clarity, the phrase “a melting point of the high melting point of the high melting point polymer” should be written as “a melting point of the high melting point polymer.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7-9, 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “long nanowire” in Claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long nanowire” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is explicitly unclear what length(s) of a nanowire render it a “long” nanowire (as opposed to not a long nanowire). The term “short nanowire” in Claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short nanowire” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is explicitly unclear what length(s) of a nanowire render it a “short” nanowire (as opposed to not a short nanowire). Claim 7 recites the limitation "the polymer adhesive" (in the phrase “mixing uniformly a low melting point polymer, a high melting point polymer, the polymer adhesive”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation “0.5-10 parts of the polymer adhesive.” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if this “the polymer adhesive” is or is not in reference to the “the polymer adhesive” cited previously in the Claim (i.e. “mixing uniformly a low melting point polymer, a high melting point polymer, the polymer adhesive”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9, 12-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the aforementioned objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 (Claims 8-9, 12-26 each ultimately depend from Claim 7), recites a preparation method of a composite separator. Claim 7 requires the following four steps at minimum: (1) mixing uniformly a low melting point polymer, a high melting point polymer, a polymer adhesive, and the long nanowire to obtain a first mixed solution, (2) mixing an organic solvent with a pore-forming agent to obtain a second mixed solution, (3) mixing uniformly the first mixed solution, the second mixed solution, the short nanowire, and an inorganic nanoparticle powder to obtain a slurry, and (4) coating and curing the slurry on the surface of the base material. Claim 7 further requires that the composite separator comprises the base material and a composition coated and cured on the surface of the base material, wherein the composition is structured in the instantly claimed manner. The closet prior art references of record (i.e. Sato, Kai, Kim, and Wang, wherein the relevant teachings of said prior art references are outlined, in detail, in the 11/20/25 Final Rejection) neither teach nor suggest a preparation method which includes, at least, the aforementioned steps (1) through (4), and the aforementioned combination of said base material and said composition. Sato’s preparation method(s) (See, at least, Examples 10-11 at [0149]-[0150]) do not involve the formation of distinct first and second mixed solutions as claimed, the uniform mixing of such solutions with a short nanowire and an inorganic nanoparticle powder as claimed, or the coating and curing of the resulting slurry of the surface of a base material. Neither Kai, nor Kim, nor Wang cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Sato, whether considered alone or in combination. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2022
Application Filed
May 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603335
SINGLE BATTERY PACK INVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603401
TERMINAL RESIN FILM AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12573616
Positive Electrode for Secondary Battery, Method of Manufacturing the Same, and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573650
METHOD FOR USING FUEL CELL SYSTEM AIR THROTTLE TO CONTROL HYBRID POWER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567597
FLOW BATTERY SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.6%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 659 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