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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025. Note, Claim 13 was erroneously not listed as a claim readable on Species A in the response dated 10/21/2025 . Claim 13 is examined herein. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-7 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US-20160049628-A1) and Lee et al. (US-20150221916-A1). Regarding Claim 1 , Kim teaches with the following modification of Lee An electrochemical device (a lithium secondary battery, see [0032]) , comprising an electrode plate and a separation layer formed on a surface of the electrode plate (separator 24 is positioned between the cathode 23 and the anode 22 , see Fig. 2 and [0125]) , wherein the separation layer comprises a porous layer formed on the surface of the electrode plate (the separator comprises a porous base and is be positioned between the cathode and the anode, see [0013] and [0125]) , Kim teaches the porous base can suitable be a fibrous base (see [0072]) but does not indicate the porous base includes nanofiber. Therefore, Kim does not teach: the porous layer comprises nanofibers, To solve the same problem of providing a fibrous separator for a battery (see Abstract), Lee teaches a separator with nanofiber layer and fiber layer, see [0038] and Fig. 2. Lee further teaches this separator design allows for “good electrolyte wettability and surface properties, fine and uniform pore size due to coating with nanofibers, and high bendability and thus dendrite resistance,” see [0055]. Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the fibrous porous base have the structure of the separator taught by Lee of having a fiber and nanofiber layers in order to provide “good electrolyte wettability and surface properties, fine and uniform pore size due to coating with nanofibers, and high bendability and thus dendrite resistance. and it takes 15 seconds or less for an electrolytic solution to infiltrate into the separation layer (The claim as written is interpreted to require merely any amount of electrolytic solution to infiltrate the claimed separation layer in 15 seconds. Kim teaches the separator is easily impregnated with an electrolyte, see [0046]. T he separator taught by Kim in view of Lee meet the structural requirements of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim in view of Lee teaches overlap between the materials and characteristics of the separation layer as given in the rejections of Claim 2-4 below. Further , there is significant overlap in the components used in the electrol yte solutions as described in the instant specification (see instant spec.- [0069-0072] ) and Kim (see Kim- [0117-0122] ). Therefore, i t is reasonable to conclude that Kim’s separator is structurally capable of having some amount of electrolyte infiltrate the separator within the claimed 15s. Note, the instant specification does not indicate the structural feature(s) which is/are necessary for the claimed separation layer to perform the functional limitation/ intended use of “ it takes 15 seconds or less for an electrolytic solution to infiltrate into the separation layer . ” ) . Regarding Claim 2 , the following is obvious over modified Kim: the separation layer has at least one characteristic selected from the group consisting of: an air permeability of the separation layer is 5 s/100 cm 3 to 400 s/100 cm 3 calculated by assuming that a thickness of the separation layer is 20 µm (optional limitation) ; a porosity of the separation layer is 30% to 95% (optional limitation) ; an average pore diameter of the porous layer is 20 nm to 10 µm (optional limitation) ; Kim does not teach the exact range of: and (d) the thickness of the separation layer is 1 µm to 20 µm () . However, Kim teaches the separator has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 25 μm , which has significant overlap with the claimed range, see [0081]. Kim further teaches a separator within the taught range effectively reduces the risk of a short circuit between the anode and the cathode, thus improving the capacity of the lithium secondary battery, see [0081]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired improvement capacity improvement. Regarding Claim 3 , Kim in view of Lee teaches: wherein a diameter of the nanofibers is 0.1 nm to 2 µm (nanofibers with a diameter of 100-600 nm which is within the claimed range, see Lee-[0018]) . Regarding Claim 4 ,Kim does not necessarily teach: wherein the nanofibers comprise at least one of polyvinylidene difluoride, polyimide, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene glycol, polyphenylene ether, polypropylene carbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene oxide, polyvinylidene difluoride-hexafluoropropylene, or polyvinylidene difluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene. However, Kim teaches the porous base can suitably be made of at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, polyethylene oxide, and polyacrylonitrile. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, polyethylene oxide, and polyacrylonitrile for the porous base. Regarding Claim 5 , modified Kim teaches: wherein the separation layer further comprises a polymer layer, the polymer layer overlays the porous layer (first coating layer that is polymer based that is disposed on the porous base, see [0013]) , Kim does not teach the exact range of: a thickness of the polymer layer is 0.05 µm to 4 µm, However, Kim teaches the first coating layer has a thickness of about 0.3 μm to about 10 μm , which overlaps with the claimed range, see [0044]. Kim further teaches the first coating layer thickness within the taught range improves the binding strength of the separator to the electrode preventing or reducing the risk of detachment, see [0044]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired reduction of detachment risk between separator and electrode. and a percentage of an overlay area of the polymer layer on the porous layer is 10% to 70% (“A total area of the dot-patterned first coating layer may be about 10% to about 70%... based on a total area of the separator,” see [0046]) . Regarding Claim 6 , modified Kim teaches: wherein the polymer layer comprises a polymer agglomerate (the polymer aggregate is interpreted to correspond to the dots patterned in the first coating layer which are rolled on the porous base and dried, see [0013] and [0016]) , and the polymer agglomerate has at least one characteristic selected from the group consisting of: a maximum overlay area of a single polymer agglomerate in the polymer layer is 1 x 10 -5 mm 2 to 1 mm 2 (The single agglomerate is interpreted to a single patterned dot of the first layer. As shown below, the single dot area taught by Kim is within the claimed range) ; Kim teaches the first coating layer has dot patterns with an average diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm wherein the single polymer agglomerate is interpreted to be a single dot of the first coating layer, see [0017]. The area of the patterned dots are therefore: A = π × r² = π × 0.05mm² = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 A = π × r² = π × 0.5mm² = 0.79 mm 2 Range of the area of the polymer dots = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 - 0.79 mm 2 which is within the claimed range. a depth by which the polymer aggregate in the polymer layer penetrates into the porous layer is 0.01%to 80% of a thickness of the porous layer (optional limitation) ; and (c) the depth by which the polymer aggregate in the polymer layer penetrates into the porous layer is 10% to 80% of a thickness of the polymer agglomerate (optional limitation) . Regarding Claim 7 , modified Kim teaches: wherein the polymer layer has a regular pattern (“The first coating layer may be a dot-patterned layer including a plurality of dots arranged at intervals,” see [0016]) . Regarding Claim 11 and 12 , modified Kim in view of Lee teaches: (per Claim 11) wherein an average pore diameter of the porous layer in a thickness direction varies. As rendered obvious above, the modification of Kim in view of Lee teaches having a nonwoven fiber layer and nano fiber layer for the porous base. Lee teaches the pore size depends on the thickness of the average fiber diameter with the larger diameter forming larger pores and smaller diameter forming smaller pores, see [0037]. Because the nano fibers have a smaller diameter then the pore size in that layer is smaller than the non-woven layer this also appears to be shown in Fig. 2. wherein the average pore diameter of the porous layer in a region of the porous layer closer to the electrode plate is less than the average pore diameter in a region farther away from the electrode plate (Kim teaches the separator is disposed between the cathode and anode, see [0116]. Lee teaches having a nanofiber layer and therefore it necessarily is disposed closer to either the anode or cathode, i.e., electrode plate ) . Regarding Claim 13 , modified Kim does not teach the exact range of: wherein a maximum overlay area of a single polymer agglomerate in the polymer layer is 0.001 mm 2 to 0.05 mm 2 . However, Kim teaches the first coating layer has dot patterns with an average diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm wherein the single polymer agglomerate is interpreted to be a single dot of the first coating layer, see [0017]. The area of the patterned dots are therefore: A = π × r² = π × 0.05mm² = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 A = π × r² = π × 0.5mm² = 0.79 mm 2 Range of the area of the polymer dots = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 - 0.79 mm 2 which overlaps the claimed range. Kim further teaches the first coating layer dot pattern diameter within the taught range improves the binding strength of the separator to the electrode preventing or reducing the risk of detachment, see [0044]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired reduction of detachment risk between separator and electrode. Regarding Claim 14 , Kim with the modification in view of Lee teaches: An electronic device (the battery assemblies of Kim is can be used in an electric devices, see [0129]) , comprises an electrochemical device (lithium secondary battery, see [0010]-[0011]) , the electrochemical device comprising an electrode plate and a separation layer formed on a surface of the electrode plate (separator 24 is positioned between the cathode 23 and the anode 22 , see Fig. 2 and [0125]) , wherein the separation layer comprises a porous layer formed on the surface of the electrode plate (the separator comprises a porous base and is be positioned between the cathode and the anode, see [0013] and [0125]) , Kim teaches the porous base can suitable be a fibrous base (see [0072]) but does not indicate the porous base includes nanofiber. Therefore, Kim does not teach: the porous layer comprises nanofibers, To solve the same problem of providing a fibrous separator for a battery (see Abstract), Lee teaches a separator with nanofiber layer and microfiber layer, see [0038] and Fig. 2. Lee further teaches this separator design allows for “good electrolyte wettability and surface properties, fine and uniform pore size due to coating with nanofibers, and high bendability and thus dendrite resistance,” see [0055]. Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the fibrous porous base have the structure of the separator taught by Lee of having microfiber and nanofiber layers in order to provide “good electrolyte wettability and surface properties, fine and uniform pore size due to coating with nanofibers, and high bendability and thus dendrite resistance. and it takes 15 seconds or less for an electrolytic solution to infiltrate into the separation layer ( The claim as written is interpreted to require merely any amount of electrolytic solution to infiltrate the claimed separation layer in 15 seconds. Kim teaches the separator is easily impregnated with an electrolyte, see [0046]. The separator taught by Kim in view of Lee meet the structural requirements of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim in view of Lee teached overlap between the materials and characteristics of the separation layer as given in the rejections of Claim 2-4 below. Further, there is significant overlap in the components used in the electrolyte solutions as described in the instant specification (see instant spec.- [0069-0072]) and Kim (see Kim- [0117-0122]). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Kim’s separator is structurally capable of having some amount of electrolyte infiltrate the separator within the claimed 15s. Note, the instant specification does not indicate the structural feature(s) which is/are necessary for the claimed separation layer to perform the functional limitation/ intended use of “ it takes 15 seconds or less for an electrolytic solution to infiltrate into the separation layer. ” ) . Regarding Claim 15 , the following is obvious over modified Kim: wherein the separation layer is characterized by at least one selected characteristic from the group consisting of: (a) an air permeability of the separation layer is 5 s/100 cm 3 to 400 s/100 cm 3 calculated by assuming that a thickness of the separation layer is 20 µm (optional limitation) ; (b) a porosity of the separation layer is 30% to 95% (optional limitation) ; (c) an average pore diameter of the porous layer is 20 nm to 10 µm (optional limitation) ; Kim does not teach the exact range of: and (d) the thickness of the separation layer is 1 µm to 20 µm. However, Kim teaches the separator has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 25 μm , which has significant overlap with the claimed range, see [0081]. Kim further teaches a separator within the taught range effectively reduces the risk of a short circuit between the anode and the cathode, thus improving the capacity of the lithium secondary battery, see [0081]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired improvement capacity improvement. Regarding Claim 16 , Kim in view of Lee teaches: wherein a diameter of the nanofibers is 0.1 nm to 2 µm (nanofibers with a diameter of 100-600 nm which is within the claimed range, see Lee-[0018]) . Regarding Claim 17 , Kim does not necessarily teach: wherein the nanofibers comprise at least one of polyvinylidene difluoride, polyimide, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene glycol, polyphenylene ether, polypropylene carbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene oxide, polyvinylidene difluoride-hexafluoropropylene, or polyvinylidene difluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene. However, Kim teaches the porous base can suitably be made of at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, polyethylene oxide, and polyacrylonitrile. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, polyethylene oxide, and polyacrylonitrile for the porous base. Regarding Claim 18 , modified Kim teaches: wherein the separation layer further comprises a polymer layer, the polymer layer overlays the porous layer (first coating layer that is polymer based that is disposed on the porous base, see [0013]) , Kim does not teach the exact range of: a thickness of the polymer layer is 0.05 µm to 4 µm, However, Kim teaches the first coating layer has a thickness of about 0.3 μm to about 10 μm , which overlaps with the claimed range, see [0044]. Kim further teaches the first coating layer thickness within the taught range improves the binding strength of the separator to the electrode preventing or reducing the risk of detachment, see [0044]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired reduction of detachment risk between separator and electrode. and a percentage of an overlay area of the polymer layer on the porous layer is 10% to 70% (“A total area of the dot-patterned first coating layer may be about 10% to about 70%... based on a total area of the separator,” see [0046]) . Regarding Claim 19 , modified Kim teaches: wherein the polymer layer comprises a polymer agglomerate (the polymer aggregate is interpreted to correspond to the dots patterned in the first coating layer which are rolled on the porous base and dried, see [0013] and [0016]) , and the polymer agglomerate is characterized by at least one selected characteristic from the group consisting of: (a) a maximum overlay area of a single polymer agglomerate in the polymer layer is 1 x 10 -5 mm 2 to 1 mm 2 (The single agglomerate is interpreted to a single patterned dot of the first layer. As shown below, the single dot area taught by Kim is within the claimed range) ; Kim teaches the first coating layer has dot patterns with an average diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm wherein the single polymer agglomerate is interpreted to be a single dot of the first coating layer, see [0017]. The area of the patterned dots are therefore: A = π × r² = π × 0.05mm² = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 A = π × r² = π × 0.5mm² = 0.79 mm 2 Range of the area of the polymer dots = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 - 0.79 mm 2 which is within the claimed range. (b) a depth by which the polymer aggregate in the polymer layer penetrates into the porous layer is 0.01%to 80% of a thickness of the porous layer (optional limitation) ; and (c) the depth by which the polymer aggregate in the polymer layer penetrates into the porous layer is 10% to 80% of a thickness of the polymer agglomerate (optional limitation) . Regarding Claim 20 , modified Kim does not teach the exact range of: wherein a maximum overlay area of a single polymer agglomerate in the polymer layer is 0.001 mm 2 to 0.05 mm 2 . However, Kim teaches the first coating layer has dot patterns with an average diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm wherein the single polymer agglomerate is interpreted to be a single dot of the first coating layer, see [0017]. The area of the patterned dots are therefore: A = π × r² = π × 0.05mm² = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 A = π × r² = π × 0.5mm² = 0.79 mm 2 Range of the area of the polymer dots = 7.9 ×10 -3 mm 2 - 0.79 mm 2 which overlaps the claimed range. Kim further teaches the first coating layer dot pattern diameter within the taught range improves the binding strength of the separator to the electrode preventing or reducing the risk of detachment, see [0044]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness range in order arrive at a desired reduction of detachment risk between separator and electrode. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2854 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 303-297-4684 . 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. /K.E.C./ Kayla E. Clary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721