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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 11-18 are newly added. Claims 1-18 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 1-2, 6-12 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai (US 2020/0099031 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 & 16-18, Kai teaches a separator, between electrodes, comprising a substrate comprising a porous nonwoven fabric ([0013] & [0045]-[0049]) and a porous high-concentration particle-containing film (i.e porous layer) comprising preferably 85 wt% to 97 wt% of inorganic particles and 3 wt% to 15 wt% of an aromatic polyamide obtained by copolymerization of an aromatic diamine including compounds such as para-phenylenediamine, 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether (i.e 4,4’ oxydiphenylenediamine), and 3,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether (i.e 3,4’ oxydiphenylenediamine); and an aromatic dicarboxylic halide such as terephthalic acid chloride (i.e para-terephthaloyl dichloride) ([0013]-[0030] & [0041]-[0042]), wherein the aromatic diamine preferably includes aromatic groups having ether groups which account for 5 mol% to 80 mol% (preferably 10 mol% to 40 mol%) of the aromatic groups in the aromatic polyamide ([0025]). In an exemplary embodiment, Kai teaches 85 mol% of 2-chloro-1,4-phenylene diamine and 15 mol% of 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether as aromatic diamines to be copolymerized with the aromatic dicarboxylic halide (Example 1). While Example 1 uses 2-chloro-1,4-phenylene diamine as an aromatic diamine compound excluding ether groups, it would have been obvious to use paraphenylene diamine instead because Kai discloses it as another suitable aromatic diamine excluding ether groups ([0022]). Similarly, the use of terephthalic acid chloride over 2-chloroterephthalic acid chloride, used as the aromatic dicarboxylic halide in Example 1 of Kai, would have been obvious as another suitable aromatic dicarboxylic halide ([0023]). When 1,4-phenylenediamine (molecular weight = 108.14 g/mol) and 4,4’oxydiphenylenediamine/3,4’oxydiphenylenediamine (each having a molecular weight = 200.24 g/mol) are employed as aromatic diamines (with the latter including aromatic group having an ether component) such that the aromatic groups having an ether make up 10 mol% to 40 mol% of the aromatic diamines, the resulting weight ratio of 4,4’oxydiphenylenediamine/3,4’oxydiphenylenediamine based on the total weight of aromatic diamine would be 17 wt% (i.e at 10 mol%) to 55 wt% (i.e at 40 mol%) which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 40 wt% to 60 wt%. While Kai does not explicitly teach the inorganic particles being present at 75 vol% or greater, it is noted that Kai discloses a content of preferably 85 wt% to 97 wt%. However, when the content of the particles is 90 wt% or more, the corresponding vol% of the particles is 75 vol% or more which reads on the presently claimed range. The above values are obtained based on the specific gravities of aluminum oxide (i.e inorganic particle) and the meta-aramid as noted in Applicant’s remarks on 08/19/2025.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kai teaches a method for producing the separator of claim 7, wherein a treatment solution containing a para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide, particles and an organic solvent, in which a proportion of particles constituting the solid portion of the para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide and the particles in the treatment solution is 85 wt% to 97 wt%, is applied onto a substrate and integrated with it ([0033]-[0042] & [0076]-[0078]).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US 2011/0171514 A1) in view of Kai (US 2020/0099031 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14 & 16-18, Nishikawa teaches a separator, between electrodes, comprising a porous base film (i.e polyolefin microporous membrane) and a porous high-concentration particle-containing film (i.e heat resistant porous layer) comprising 50 wt% to 95 wt% of inorganic particles and an aromatic polyamide obtained by copolymerization of a phenylenediamine such as meta-phenylenediamine and an acid dichloride such as isophthalic acid chloride, wherein the aromatic polyamide has a weight average molecular weight of 8,000 to 1,000,000 with a ratio Mw/Mn of a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the aromatic polyamide and a number average molecular weight (Mn) of the aromatic polyamide of 5 to 100 ([0047], [0060]-[0062], [0065], [0089] & [0108]). Nishikawa is silent as to (1) the particle being present at 75 vol% or greater and (2) the acid dichloride being para-terephthaloyl dichloride, the phenylenediamine being para-phenylenediamine and a copolymerizing diamine selected from the claimed group in claim 1 or 11 to form a para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide. Kai teaches a separator, between electrodes, comprising a substrate comprising a porous nonwoven fabric ([0013] & [0045]-[0049]) and a porous high-concentration particle-containing film (i.e porous layer) comprising preferably 85 wt% to 97 wt% of inorganic particles and 3 wt% to 15 wt% of an aromatic polyamide obtained by copolymerization of an aromatic diamine including compounds such as para-phenylenediamine, 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether (i.e 4,4’ oxydiphenylenediamine), and 3,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether (i.e 3,4’ oxydiphenylenediamine); and an aromatic dicarboxylic halide such as terephthalic acid chloride (i.e para-terephthaloyl dichloride) ([0013]-[0030] & [0041]-[0042]), wherein the aromatic diamine preferably includes aromatic groups having ether groups which account for 5 mol% to 80 mol% (preferably 10 mol% to 40 mol%) of the aromatic groups in the aromatic polyamide ([0025]). In an exemplary embodiment, Kai teaches 85 mol% of 2-chloro-1,4-phenylene diamine and 15 mol% of 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl ether as aromatic diamines to be copolymerized with the aromatic dicarboxylic halide (Example 1). While Example 1 uses 2-chloro-1,4-phenylene diamine as an aromatic diamine compound excluding ether groups, it would have been obvious to use paraphenylene diamine instead because Kai discloses it as another suitable aromatic diamine excluding ether groups ([0022]). Similarly, the use of terephthalic acid chloride over 2-chloroterephthalic acid chloride, used as the aromatic dicarboxylic halide in Example 1 of Kai, would have been obvious as another suitable aromatic dicarboxylic halide ([0023]). When 1,4-phenylenediamine (molecular weight = 108.14 g/mol) and 4,4’oxydiphenylenediamine/3,4’oxydiphenylenediamine (each having a molecular weight = 200.24 g/mol) are employed as aromatic diamines (with the latter including aromatic group having an ether component) such that the aromatic groups having an ether make up 10 mol% to 40 mol% of the aromatic diamines, the resulting weight ratio of 4,4’oxydiphenylenediamine/3,4’oxydiphenylenediamine based on the total weight of aromatic diamine would be 17 wt% (i.e at 10 mol%) to 55 wt% (i.e at 40 mol%) which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 40 wt% to 60 wt%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use an aromatic polyamide composition, as described in Kai above, in order to obtain sufficiently developed porous structures thereby preventing deterioration of battery characteristics while ensuring a sufficiently large resistance to thermal breakage to secure safety as taught by Kai ([0019] & [0025]). While modified Nishikawa does not explicitly teach the particles being present at 75 vol% or greater, it is noted that Nishikawa discloses a content of 50 wt% to 95 wt%. However, when the content of the particles is 90 wt% or more, the corresponding vol% of the particles is 75 vol% or more which reads on the presently claimed range. The above values are obtained based on the specific gravities of aluminum oxide and the aramid as noted in Applicant’s remarks on 08/19/2025.
Regarding claims 5 & 15, Nishikawa as modified by Kai teaches the separator of claims 1 & 11, respectively, but is silent as to the intrinsic viscosity of the para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide in the film being 1.5 to 2.6, as the intrinsic viscosity is measured at 30C for a solution in 98% concentrated sulfuric acid with a polymer concentration of 0.5 g/dl. However, modified by Nishikawa teaches a para-copolymerized aromatic polyimide having the same composition as presently claimed with overlapping molecular weight as noted above. Accordingly, modified Nishikawa’s aromatic polyamide would be expected to possess the claimed intrinsic viscosity properties. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 9-10, Nishikawa in view of Kai’s disclosure, as described above, teaches a method for producing the separator of claim 7, wherein a treatment solution containing a para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide, particles and an organic solvent, in which a proportion of particles constituting the solid portion of the para-copolymerized aromatic polyamide and the particles in the treatment solution is 50 wt% to 95 wt%, is applied onto a substrate and integrated with it ([0065] & [0077]-[0083]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of Kai and in view of Nishikawa and Kai as presented above. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-18 stand rejected.
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.
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 at (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