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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 06/23/2026. Claims 1 is currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 10-12 are newly added. Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1, however the previously cited prior art has been upheld as reading on the amended claims. Updated rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/12/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A) further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polymer resin), and an adhesive layer (121) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1, [0049, 0076, 0097, 0123]). Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) is partially disposed on one side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) in a thickness direction thereof (Figure 1, [0097]). Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) is provided at a predetermined pitch so as to form a striped pattern (Figure 1, [0165]). Lee further discloses that the total width of the adhesive layer, in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the adhesive layer (121) extends, is 4 mm [0165]. Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) occupies between 70% and 95% of the surface area of the separator [0089].
The examiner notes that the term “a width” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. For example, “a width” may be considered, for example, half of the total width (i.e., 2 mm).
Lee is deficient in disclosing that the adhesive layer occupies a surface area at a ratio of 40% or higher and 60% or lower with respect to a surface of the sheet-like substance.
Kwon discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polyethylene), and an adhesive layer (120) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1a, [0047, 0049-0050, 0057]). Kwon further discloses that the adhesive layer (120) is partially disposed on one side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) in a thickness direction thereof (Figure 1a, [0047]). Kwon further discloses that on the side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) where the adhesive layer (120) is disposed, the adhesive layer (120) occupies a surface area at a ratio of between 20% and 80% with respect to a surface of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) (Figure 1a, [0055]). Kwon further discloses that when the coverage of the adhesive layer (120) is in such a range, the separator is capable of having good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions [0055].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the amount of surface area of the sheet-like substrate which is covered by the adhesive layer, an amount between 20% and 80%, as such an amount is known in the art as suitable for the coverage for a separator with an adhesive layer disposed on a sheet-like substrate and as Kwon teaches that such a range allows the separator to have good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that on the one side of the sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) where the adhesive layer (121) is disposed, the adhesive layer (121) has an average thickness of between 0.1 µm and 3 µm [0091]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell (lithium secondary battery), comprising: an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the separator (100) according to Claim 1; and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (electrolyte) (Figure 1, [0018, 0180]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Lee further discloses that the total width of the adhesive layer, in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the adhesive layer (121) extends, is 4 mm [0165].
The examiner notes that the term “a width” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. For example, “a width” may be considered, for example, half of the total width (i.e., 2 mm). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Regarding Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Lee discloses that the adhesive layer (121) contains an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) which may be polyvinylidene fluoride (Figure 1, [0076, 0097]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the adhesive layer (121) has a thickness between 0.1 µm to 3 µm (Figure 1, [0091]). Lee further discloses that an inter-stripe portion distance (width of uncoated region) may be between 0.1 mm to 3 mm (Figure 1, [0091]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I).
As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Lee further discloses that the total width of the adhesive layer, in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the adhesive layer (121) extends, is 4 mm [0165]. The examiner notes that the term “a width” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. For example, “a width” may be considered, for example, half of the total width (i.e., 2 mm). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A) as modified by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1), as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0037631 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Lee (2015)” to distinguish from Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A)).
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 5 as set forth above.
Lee is deficient in disclosing an assembled battery, comprising: plural cells aligned while being electrically connected to each other, wherein at least one of the plural cells is the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell according to Claim 5.
Lee (2015) discloses an assembled battery (battery module, 100), comprising: plural cells (battery cells, 10) aligned while being electrically connected to each other, wherein the plural cells (battery cells, 10) are non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cells (battery cells, 10) (Figure 1, [0005, 0034, 0039]). Lee (2015) further discloses that the assembled battery (battery module, 100) serves to provide a large capacity output for electrical devices such as a motor vehicle and the like (Figure 1, [0005]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize a plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries of Lee in an assembled battery such that the plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries are electrically connected to each other, in order to have a battery capacity capable of supporting an electrical device with a high power requirement, as taught by Lee (2015). Such a modification would be further obvious to the skilled artisan as it is known in the art as a common method of scaling the output capacity for use within an electrical device, as taught by Lee (2015). Furthermore, it has been held that merely scaling up a prior art process capable of being scaled up does not hold patentable weight (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A) as modified by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0127328 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Kim” to distinguish from Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A)).
Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the separator (100) has a sheet-like shape having a longer side and a shorter side, wherein the adhesive layer (121) extends at an angle to the longer side (Figure 1).
Lee is silent to the angle formed between the adhesive layer and the longer side.
Kim discloses a separator comprising a sheet-like substrate (separator, 120) on which a coating portions (150) is coated in a diagonal, stripe-shaped pattern (Figure 1, [0051-0052]). Kim further discloses that the coating portions (150) may be coated such that an angle (A) formed between the coating portions (150) and a side of the sheet-like substrate (separator, 120) is an acute angle between 5° and 60° (Figure 1, [0064]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the degree of the angle between the adhesive layer and longer side of Lee, between 5° and 60°, as it is known in the art as a suitable angle for a strip-shaped coating pattern to have when applied onto a substrate for a separator, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in shape of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 7):
Lee as modified by Kwon and Kim discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 7 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 7, the acute angle is between 5° and 60°. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A) as modified by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Maruhashi et al. (US 2023/0006263 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Lee as modified by Kwon discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the separator (100) has a sheet-like shape having a longer side and a shorter side, wherein the adhesive layer (121) extends at diagonal to the longer side (Figure 1, [0165]).
Lee is deficient in disclosing that the adhesive layer is formed as having the striped pattern parallel to or perpendicular to the longer side.
Maruhashi discloses a separator on which an adhesive layer (S) may be formed, such that the separator is affixed to a negative electrode at a surface (Z) via the adhesive layer (S) (Figure 5, [0047]). Maruhashi further discloses that the adhesive layer (S) may be formed as a stripe which runs parallel to a longer side of the separator (see Figure 5), or a stripe which runs diagonal relative to the longer side of the separator (see Figure 6) [0329].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the arrangement of the adhesive layer pattern of Lee, a pattern wherein the stripes run parallel to the longer side of the separator, as it is known in the art that such an arrangement is suitable for an adhesive to be in on a separator, as taught by Maruhashi. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in shape of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lee et al. (KR 20200036641 A) teaches away from a separator comprising a sheet-like substrate made of porous resin wherein on one side of, or both sides of, the sheet-like substrate wherein the adhesive layer is disposed, the adhesive layer occupies a surface area ratio of 40% or higher and 60% or lower with respect to a surface of the sheet-like substrate. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Lee teaches that the adhesive layer should occupy at least 70% of the separator surface area to bond the separator to the electrode, as when the adhesive is formed below the lower limit (i.e., 70%) it is difficult to firmly bond between the separator and electrode [0089].
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges that Lee teaches that when the adhesive layer occupies a surface area at an amount below 70% the bond between the separator and the electrode may be unsatisfactory, the examiner disagrees that Kwon et al. (US 2018/0315971 A1) does not provide adequate motivation to modify the separator of Lee.
As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Lee discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polymer resin), and an adhesive layer (121) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1, [0049, 0076, 0097, 0123]).
Kwon discloses a separator (100), comprising: a sheet-like substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) made of a porous resin (polyethylene), and an adhesive layer (120) containing an adhesive resin (polyvinylidene fluoride) (Figure 1a, [0047, 0049-0050, 0057]). Kwon further discloses that on the side of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) where the adhesive layer (120) is disposed, the adhesive layer (120) occupies a surface area at a ratio of between 20% and 80% with respect to a surface of the substrate (porous polymer substrate, 110) (Figure 1a, [0055]). Kwon further discloses that when the coverage of the adhesive layer (120) is in such a range, the separator is capable of having good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions [0055].
Thus, the skilled artisan would appreciate that even in light of the teaching of Lee on the preferred coverage of the adhesive layer, as the structure and materials (for both the substrate and adhesive resin) of the separator of Lee and the separator of Kwon are substantially identical, it would be expected that a modification of Lee to have an adhesive layer coverage in the range taught by Kwon would still be able to perform adequate bonding as Kwon teaches that the separator is capable of having good adhesion without sacrificing the ability to facilitate transport of ions [0055].
Additionally, the examiner notes that the terms “a surface” and “a surface area” as written are broad limitations and are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights