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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Claims 5-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 9-10 were rejected in the 11/26/2025 office action. Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 2/23/2026, in response to the 11/26/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190326578A1 (Frischmann) in view of “Amorphous Al2O3 with N-Doped Porous Carbon as Efficient Polysulfide Barrier in Li−S Batteries” (Deng).
Applicant argues that the metal organic framework (MOF) in the secondary reference, Deng, is converted to an inorganic material. Examiner agrees.
Examiner, however, did not present Deng as the primary reference, or for teaching all claim 1 limitations. Deng is only presented for teaching the one thing that the primary reference, Frischmann, fails to teach: amorphous.
Regarding amorphous materials for a lithium-sulfur battery, Deng teaches:
“However, the application of amorphous materials as the separator in Li−S has not been reported so far. Amorphous materials could provide abundant flexible junctions to facilitate ion diffusion. Furthermore, amorphous materials possess short-range order and anisotropy that can provide more active sites for coordinating of LiPSs to overcome the shuttle effect.17 Thus, the incorporation of the amorphous materials into the separator would significantly improve the performance of the Li−S battery.”
Thus, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Frischmann’s MOF to be amorphous, as taught by Deng, to achieve the benefits of an amorphous material presented by Deng.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190326578A1 (Frischmann) in view of “Amorphous Al2O3 with N-Doped Porous Carbon as Efficient Polysulfide Barrier in Li−S Batteries” (Deng), together “modified Frischmann”.
With regard to claim 1, Frischmann teaches the following claim limitations:
A separator for a lithium secondary battery (paragraph 6: membrane for Li-ion batteries), the separator comprising:
a porous substrate (paragraphs 7, 10, 34: “membrane support may be a porous polymer”); and
a metal organic framework (MOF) layer (paragraph 83: membrane layer is MOF) formed on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (paragraph 10: membrane support laminated to membrane layer), wherein the MOF layer comprises one or more MOF molecular films (paragraph 83: membrane layer is referred to as a “layer”, and is thus a film)
Frischmann, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Deng:
the MOF layer… has an amorphous structure (abstract: MOF separator is amorphous Al2O3 and N-doped porous carbon)
Deng is directed to a lithium battery with higher electrical conductivity, faster lithium diffusion, and faster charge transfer capability (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Frischmann’s MOF to be amorphous, as taught by Deng, for a lithium battery with higher electrical conductivity, faster lithium diffusion, and faster charge transfer capability.
With regard to claim 2, modified Frischmann teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Frischmann fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Deng:
the MOF is doped with one or more hetero elements selected from the group consisting of N, S, and O (abstract: MOF includes N-doped porous carbon)
With regard to claim 3, modified Frischmann teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Frischmann also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
a thickness of the MOF layer is 0.5 nm to 20 nm (paragraph 90: membrane layer is 5 nanometers to 20 micrometers thick; i.e. 5 nm to 20,000 nm)
Frischmann’s 5-20,000 nm range overlaps the claimed 0.5-20 nm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the 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)”
Given that Frischmann’s range substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 3 is an obvious variant of Frischmann’s range.
With regard to claim 4, modified Frischmann teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Frischmann also teaches the following claim 4 limitation:
the porous substrate comprises… polypropylene (paragraph 10: the membrane support can be polypropylene)
With regard to claim 9, modified Frischmann teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Frischmann also teaches the following claim 9 limitations:
A lithium secondary battery (paragraph 6) comprising: a positive electrode (paragraph 17; figure 3: positive electrode 110); a negative electrode (paragraph 17; figure 3: negative electrode 120); the separator of claim 1 (paragraph 17; figure 3: separator 140) between the positive electrode (110) and the negative electrode (120); and an electrolyte solution (paragraph 17; figure 3: electrolyte 130).
With regard to claim 10, modified Frischmann teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 9 as described above. Frischmann fails to teach the following claim 10 limitation, which is taught by Deng:
the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur secondary battery
Deng teaches use of the MOF separator for a lithium sulfur battery (p. 1266). Deng states that rechargeable lithium sulfur batteries have high specific capacity and energy density (p. 1266). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Frischmann’s battery to be a lithium sulfur battery, as taught by Deng, for high specific capacity and energy density.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights