DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. The amended claim 1 does not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-13 are rejected under the following 103 rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/26 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 12/18/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al (US 2019/0267595) in view of Daroux et al (US 2002/0102455).
Regarding claims 1-4, 9, and 11-13, Kong et al discloses a lithium ion battery (electrochemical device) comprising a positive electrode (cathode), a negative electrode (anode), and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the separator comprises a porous substrate “100” (porous polymer substrate) and a porous layer “200” (porous coating layer) on the surface of the porous substrate, wherein the porous layer comprises a plurality of inorganic particles (second inorganic particle) and a binder (binder polymer) that is inherently partially on the surfaces of the inorganic particles to connect and fix the inorganic particles, wherein examples of the inorganic particles include Boehmite (Moh’s hardness in a range of 3 to 3.5), Magnesium hydroxide (Moh’s hardness in a range of 1.5 to 2), Aluminum hydroxide (Moh’s hardness in a range from 3), and Barium sulfate (Moh’s hardness in a range from 3 to 4); wherein the materials of the porous substrate includes polyethylene, polypropylene (polyolefin-based polymer substrate); wherein the examples of the binder include polyacrylonitrile, carboxymethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer ([0003],[0026],[0034],[0037],[0074]-[0078]).
However, Kong et al does not expressly teach a porous polymer substrate comprising a core portion substrate having a plurality of pores, and skin portion substrates disposed on both surfaces of the core portion substrate and having a plurality of pores, wherein both the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates comprise first inorganic particles, or only the core portion substrate comprises first inorganic particles, and when both the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates comprise the first inorganic particles, the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at a higher weight percentage as compared to a weight percentage of the first inorganic particles present in each of the skin portion substrates; wherein the first inorganic particles have a higher Mohs hardness than a Mohs hardness of the second inorganic particles, and wherein the skin portion substrates comprise a same material, a same amount of the first inorganic particles, and a same thickness (claim 1); wherein the first inorganic particles have a Mohs hardness of 5 or more (claim 2); wherein the first inorganic particles comprise at least one of silicon oxide (SiO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), zirconia (ZrO2), alumina (Al2O3), barium sulfate (BaSO4), barium titanate (BaTiO3), boehmite, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, or aluminum hydroxide (claim 3).
Daroux et al discloses a separator (porous polymer substrate) that is comprised of a second separator layer “40b” (core portion substrate) having a plurality of pores and [first separator layer “40a” & third separator layer “40c”] (skin portion substrates) on both surface of the second separator layer and having a plurality of pores, wherein the first separator layer, second separator layer, and a third separator layer comprises a filler (first inorganic particles), wherein the second separator layer has a higher proportion of filler than the first separator layer and third separator layer, wherein the preferred filler is silica which inherently has a Moh’s hardness of 7; wherein the separator layers “40a” & “40c” (skin portion substrates) are essentially identical, and are formed of the same separator material, wherein each separator layer “40a” & “40c” preferably has a thickness of about 10 um to about 75 um (same thickness), and wherein separator layers “40a” & “40c” have the same composition (same amount of the first inorganic particles) ([0029],[0032],[0033],[0035],[0036],[0042]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong porous substrate to include a core portion substrate having a plurality of pores, and skin portion substrates disposed on both surfaces of the core portion substrate and having a plurality of pores, wherein both the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates comprise first inorganic particles, and when both the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates comprise the first inorganic particles, the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at a higher weight percentage as compared to a weight percentage of the first inorganic particles present in each of the skin portion substrates; wherein the first inorganic particles is silica which has a Mohs hardness of 7; and wherein the skin portion substrates comprise a same material, a same amount of the first inorganic particles, and a same thickness in order to provide a multi-layer separator that has greater hardness and greater compressive strength than typical conventional single layer separators, thereby increasing its resistance to penetration and shorting ([0048]).
Regarding claims 5-7, Kong et al as modified by Daroux et al does not expressly teach the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at a weight percentage 20 to 600 times higher than the weight percentage of the first inorganic particles in both of the skin portion substrates (claim 5); wherein the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at 10 wt% to 20 wt% (claim 6); wherein the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at 10 wt% to 20 wt%, and each of the skin portion substrates comprise the first inorganic particles at 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% (claim 7).
Daroux et al also discloses a separator layer “40b” (core portion substrate) that has a filler composition ranging from 22% by weight (first inorganic particles) to a maximum percentage that can be processed into a polymer ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong/Daroux porous substrate to include a core portion substrate comprising the first inorganic particles at 10 wt% to 20 wt% because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong/Daroux porous substrate to include each of the skin portion substrates comprising the first inorganic particles at 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%, wherein the core portion substrate comprises the first inorganic particles at a weight percentage 20 to 600 times higher than the weight percentage of the first inorganic particles in both of the skin portion substrates because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The weight percentage of the first inorganic particles in both of the skin portion substrates is a result effective variable of providing a separator layer that has good adhesive properties and is formed of a softer material ([0032]). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed amount of inorganic particles in the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al (US 2019/0267595) in view of Daroux et al (US 2002/0102455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al (US 2019/0245182).
However, Kong et al as modified by Daroux et al does not expressly teach second inorganic particles that have a BET specific surface area of 5 m2/g to 20 m2/g (claim 8).
Liao et al discloses a ceramic-and-polymer compositely coated lithium ion separator comprising a ceramic-and-polymer composite coating (porous coating layer) comprising zirconium dioxide, barium titanate, and zinc oxide (second inorganic particles), serving as the ceramic powder with a specific surface area of 7.8 m2/g ([0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong/Daroux porous layer to include second inorganic particles that have a BET specific surface area of 7.8 m2/g in order to provide a separator that has the advantages of high heat resistance and high bonding strength with the positive and negative pole pieces ([0126]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al (US 2019/0267595) in view of Daroux et al (US 2002/0102455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al (US 2020/0194761).
However, Kong et al as modified by Daroux et al does not expressly teach each of the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates that has a melt index of 0.2 g/10 min or less (claim 10).
Jang et al discloses a porous polymer substrate that has a melt index of 0.15-3.0 g/10 min ([0075],[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong/Daroux porous polymer substrate to include each of the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates that has a melt index of 0.15-3.0 g/10 min in order to provide a porous polymer substrate with improved rheological properties ([0075]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kong/Daroux/Jang porous polymer substrate to include each of the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates that has a melt index of 0.2 g/10 min or less because in a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed melt index of the core portion substrate and the skin portion substrates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “However, Daroux does not disclose a porous polymer substrate comprising a core portion substrate and skin portion substrates on both surfaces of the core portion substrate, and the skin portion substrates comprise a same material, a same amount of the first inorganic particles, and a same thickness, as required by claim 1. In this regard, Daroux discloses that the separator material forming a particular separator layer 40a, 4b, and 4 c is selected to provide such layer with specific physical and structural properties and that "Each separator layer is preferably formed of a specific, and different, separator material". And, at best, Daroux merely discloses features in paragraph [0031] that suggest adhesive layers 40a and 40c having the same material”.
In response, as stated above in the 103 rejection, Daroux discloses layers “40a” & “40c” (skin portion substrates) that not only have the same material, but also the same amount of the first inorganic particles, and the same thickness. Specifically, Daroux discloses “In the embodiment shown, separator layers 40a, 40c are essentially identical, and are formed of the same separator material” (see para. [0032]) and “The two outer layers 40a, 40c have the following composition”, corresponding to the same composition (see para. [0043]). Since Daroux only discloses that “separator layer 40b is relatively thicker than separator layers 40a, 40c”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that separator layer 40a, 40c each have the same thickness. Also, there is no specific teachings (or examples) of separator layers 40a, 40c having different thicknesses throughout the disclosure of Daroux.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights