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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-15 under USC § 102(a)(1) and USC § 103, Applicant argues that the amednments to claim 1, which now recites “wherein the crack-containing layer further has a microcrack which maintains electrical conductivity of the crack-containing layer, and wherein the microcracks have a width of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.3 mm, and the microcracks have a length of 1 mm or more and 200 mm or less,” place the application in condition for patentability.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that these new limitations are rendered obvious by the teachings of Matsubayashi et al. (JP 2017035867A), as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The prior rejections of claims 2, 4-6, and 8-12 under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the crack" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2, 4, and 6-15 are similarly rejected as they require all of the limitations of claim 1.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation "the microcracks" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 6 recites only a singular “a microcrack.” Claims 2, 4, and 6-15 are similarly rejected as they require all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the crack which maintains electrical conductivity " in line 2. This renders the claim indefinite, because claim 1 recites “the crack-containing layer further has a microcrack which maintains electrical conductivity,” and it is unclear if the “crack” recited in claim 6 refers to the crack or the microcrack of claim 1.
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) 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubayashi et al. (JP 2017035867A, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Matsubayashi et al. discloses a separator for a lead-acid battery comprising a substrate (polyolefin microporous film), and a crack-containing layer (porous layer) which is laminated on at least one surface of the substrate ([0007]-[0008]. The porous layer of Matsubayashi et al. comprises grooves, shown in Fig. 1, and as such reads on the claimed crack-containing layer, see [0008]). Matsubayashi et al.’s crack-containing layer further comprises an electrically-conductive material (see e.g., inorganic microparticles that may be metal, a conductive oxide, carbon black, or graphite in [0021]-[0022]). Note that while the electrically-conductive material in the crack-containing layer of Matsubayashi et al. is coated with an insulating layer, the crack-containing layer can still reasonably be interpreted as containing an electrically conductive material.
Further regarding claim 1, Matsubayashi et al. discloses a separator wherein the crack forms electrical insulation in the crack-containing layer (see e.g. the porous layer comprises grooves that read on the claimed crack, [0008] and Fig. 1. These cracks/grooves by definition form an empty space in the crack-containing layer, and thereby form electrical insulation.)
Further regarding claim 1, Matsubayashi et al. does not explicitly disclose a separator wherein the crack-containing layer further has a microcrack which maintains electrical conductivity of the crack-containing layer, and wherein the microcracks have a width of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.3 mm, and the microcracks have a length of 1 mm or more and 200 mm or less.
However, the Instant Specification at pg. 13, lines 14-22 states that the cracks and microcracks in the claimed separator are generated during a drying process. Further, pg. 18, lines 23-25 of the Instant Specification discloses a drying process for the separator of Example 1 in which the separator and crack-containing layer are dried after coating with a coating mixture at 80 °C for 5 minutes, and the resulting separator has microcracks present, as shown in Table 1 of page 20 of the Instant Specification.
The separator of Matsubayashi et al. is produced by an analogous drying step at a temperature range of 80 to 150 °C and a heating time of 10 seconds to 30 minutes (see e.g. Matsubayashi et al.: [0038] and [0044]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to produce the separator of Matsubayashi et al. using a drying process performed at 80 °C and 5 minutes, because these drying conditions are within the range taught by Matsubayashi et al. Because these drying conditions are substantially the same conditions that the Instant Specification teaches yield microcracks, these microcracks would necessarily also be present in the separator of Matsubayashi et al. when these drying conditions are selected (see MPEP § 2112). Matsubayashi et al. therefore teaches a separator wherein the crack-containing layer further has microcracks which maintain the electrical conductivity of the crack-containing layer, and wherein the microcracks have a width of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.3 mm, and the microcracks have a length of 1 mm or more and 200 mm or less.
As to Claim 2, Matsubayashi et al. teaches a separator comprising a crack-containing layer (porous layer) that has a crack (groove, [0008] and Fig. 1). The crack-containing layer of Matsubayashi et al. is 0.5 mm to 50 mm thick ([0034]) while the cracks (grooves 10) extend to a depth of 1 mm to 6 mm ([0047], Fig. 2), implying that in some embodiments the cracks are continuous from a surface of the layer to a boundary between the crack-containing layer and the substrate (i.e., the cracks do not extend all of the way through the crack-containing layer, but instead stop at a boundary point between the crack-containing layer and the substrate).
As to Claim 4, Matsubayashi et al. teahces a separator comprising a crack-containing layer (porous layer) that has cracks (grooves) having a width of 0.5 mm to 3 mm, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 100 mm ([0008] and Fig. 1). The crack-containing layer of Matsubayashi et al. is 0.5 mm to 50 mm thick ([0034]) while the cracks (grooves) extend to a depth of 1 mm to 6 mm ([0047]), implying that in some embodiments the cracks are continuous from a surface of the layer to a boundary between the crack-containing layer and the substrate (i.e., the cracks do not extend all of the way through the crack-containing layer, but instead stop at a boundary point between the crack-containing layer and the substrate).
As to Claim 6, Matsubayashi et al. teaches the separator for a lead-acid battery according to claim 1, including microcracks having a width of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.3 mm, and the microcracks have a length of 1 mm or more and 200 mm or less (see the rejection of claim 1 set forth above). The microcracks taught by Matsubayashi et al. have the same dimensions as the instantly-claimed microcracks, and therefore the microcracks taught by Matsubayashi are observable with a scanning electron microscope, but not observable with an optical microscope, when a cracked layer surface is observed at a 500-fold magnification.
As to Claim 7, the crack-containing layer (porous layer) of Matsubayashi et al. comprises an electrically conductive material (see e.g. inorganic microparticles that may be carbon black or graphite, which are conductive carbon materials in [0021]-[0022]) that is a carbon material.
As to Claim 8, the crack-containing layer (porous layer) of Matsubayashi et al. contains an ionic surfactant (i.e., alkylbenzene sulfonate, [0032]).
As to Claim 9, the crack-containing layer (porous layer) of Matsubayashi et al. contains an acrylic copolymer resin (i.e., ethylene-acrylic acid copolymers, [0029]).
As to Claim 10, the crack-containing layer (porous layer) of Matsubayashi et al. contains an organic binder that binds particles and thereby reads on the claimed thickener ([0027]).
As to Claim 11, the crack-containing layer (porous layer) of Matsubayashi et al. contains all three of an ionic surfactant (i.e., alkylbenzene sulfonate, [0032]), an acrylic copolymer resin (i.e., ethylene-acrylic acid copolymers, [0029]), and an organic binder that binds particles and thereby reads on the claimed thickener ([0027]).
As to Claim 12, Matsubayashi et al. discloses a separator comprising a crack-containing layer (porous layer) that has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 50 mm thick (see e.g., [0034]), which substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed range of 0.1 mm to 30 mm (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whear (US 2018/0366710).
As to Claim 13, Matsubayashi et al. discloses a battery separator that includes a porous polyolefin substrate ([0008]), but does not disclose a separator comprising ribs that are at least one selected from the group of serrated ribs, slanted ribs, broken ribs, straight ribs, embossments, protrusions, and/or combinations thereof.
Whear et al., also working in the field of battery separators, teaches a porous polyolefin separator (100) that comprises a plurality of ribs (104) that can reasonably be described as being serrated ([0016], [0045], Fig. 1C). Whear et al. also teaches the use of broken ribs and slant (angled) ribs ([0011]). Whear et al. additionally teaches that these serrated ribs improve the performance of the separator by reducing dendrite formation and growth ([0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubayashi et al.’s separator by including serrated ribs on the separator substrate. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to prevent dendrite formation and growth on the separator, as taught by Whear et al..
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear (US 2018/0366710) in view of Matsubayashi (JP 2017035867A, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 14, Whear et al. discloses a lead-acid battery in which a polyolefin separator (100) is disposed between a positive electrode (204) and a negative electrode (202, [0050], Fig. 2A). However, Whear et al. is silent as to whether the separator is the separator according to claim 1.
Matsubayashi et al. teaches a separator that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Matsubayashi et al. additionally teaches that this separator design suppresses warping and exhibits good performance when used in an electricity storage device (see e.g. Matsubayashi et al.: [0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to use the separator taught by Matsubayashi et al., which reads on the separator of claim 1. Said artisan would have been motivated to replace Whear et al.’s separator with Matsubayashi et al.’s separator because Matsubayashi et al. teaches that this separator comprising a crack-containing layer advantageously suppresses warping and exhibits good performance when used in an electricity storage device.
As to Claim 15, Whear et al. in view of Matsubayashi et al. teaches the lead-acid battery according to claim 14, wherein the crack-containing layer faces the negative electrode and is in contact with the negative electrode (see e.g. Whear et al.: Fig. 2, showing separator 100 interposed between positive electrode 204 and negative electrode 202. As Matsubayashi et al. at [0036] teaches that the porous layer which reads on a crack-containing layer is applied to both sides of the separator, the separator of Whear et al. in view of Matsubayashi et al. is therefore in contact with the negative electrode ([0069]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights