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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 3 is amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4 are cancelled.
Claims 3, 5-8 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/14/2026 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (JP 2017195072A; machine translation) in view of Madabusi et al (US 20160181626 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kaneko teaches an aqueous polyurethane resin dispersion for a secondary battery separator (Paragraph 0001), comprising a polyurethane resin dispersed in water (Paragraph 0008), the polyurethane resin being obtained by reacting a polyol, a polyisocyanate compound, and a chain extender (Paragraph 0008), wherein the polyol contains a polycarbonate polyol and a polyolefin polyol (Paragraph 0010). Kaneko does not teach a polyol with a content of polycarbonate polyol is 13 parts by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of a total content of the polycarbonate polyol and the polyolefin polyol.
However, Madabusi teaches an ionically conductive separator comprising polyurethane from a polyol with a polycarbonate backbone (Paragraph 0026). Madabusi also teaches that the polyol may comprise a mixture of polycarbonate polyols with other polyols such as polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polytetramethylene glycol etc (Paragraph 0041). Olefins are unsaturated hydrocarbons that contain one or more double caron-carbon bonds in their molecules. These examples fit the category of polyolefin polyol, and furthermore Madabusi does not limit the polyols to be used to the examples stated. Madabusi teaches that typically, at least 50% or more, based on the total weight of all polyols in the mixture, is one or more polycarbonate polyols (Paragraph 0041). 50% of the total weight of all polyols is within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. 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 use the claimed content ratio in the polyols in order to make a battery separator that maintains dimensional stability (Paragraph 0023), and reduce swelling in the presence of organic solvents (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 7,
Kaneko teaches the use of aqueous polyurethane resin dispersion per Claim 3 in a secondary battery separator (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 8,
Kaneko teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator according to Claim 5, Claim 7 (Paragraph 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Madabusi US '626 the amount of the polycarbonate polyols is, at minimum, greater than 50 parts by mass based on the total amount (100 parts) of the polycarbonate polyol and the polyolefin polyol. Applicant argues that it would be outside the claimed range. Examiner disagrees, and as shown in rejection of Claim 3 in this office action, the value of 50% in Madabusi is within the claimed range of 13 parts by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of a total content. Examiner notes that the prior art range shares the end point of 50%.
Applicant states in the remarks that Madabusi US '626 teaches that 50 wt. % or more is typically one or more polycarbonate polyols based on the total weight of all polyols in the mixture, which contains not only polvolefin polvol but also other polvols, etc. Thus, the minimum amount of polycarbonate polyols (contained in the mixture) must be greater than 50 wt. % based on the total amount of the polycarbonate polyol and the polyolefin polyol. Examiner disagrees with this reasoning. Madabusi does not teach that the polyol mixture must contain polyolefin and other polyols. Madabusi states that the mixture comprises one or more polycarbonate polyols with other polyols such as polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol etc (Paragraph 0041). Madabusi also states that the 50% of the total weight of all polyols is one or more polycarbonate polyol. Hence, Madabusi reads on the claimed invention, and Examiner maintains the rejection.
References of Interest
Examiner notes below references that are pertinent to this area
Noda et al (US 20220403097 A1; FIBERS, FIBER MULTILAYER STRUCTURE, SPINNING SOLUTION FOR ELECTROSPINNING, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING FIBERS)
Jiang et al (US 20170173535 A1; MICROPOROUS ARTICLES WITH A THREE-DIMENSIONAL POROUS NETWORK OF ACID-SINTERED INTERCONNECTED SILICA NANOPARTICLES AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME)
Yang et al (US 20160285063 A1; SEPARATOR FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME)
Maruoka et al (JP 2015006964 A; COATING MATERIAL AND SLURRY FOR SECONDARY BATTERY SEPARATOR, SECONDARY BATTERY SEPARATOR, AND SECONDARY BATTERY)
Hiroshi et al (US 2022/0332910 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