DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and twelve active dependent claims (claims 2 - 13). Claims 14 – 20 are currently withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “impregnated” in claim 1, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, impregnated is taken to mean at least a portion is contained within the porous ceramic material. Regarding the aspects of oxidation state and coupled to, these limitations have been defined by Applicants in Paragraph 0032 of the PGPUB.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I in the paper filed November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities discussed below. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraphs 0069 and 0072 of the PGPUB contain typographical errors in the formulas,
PNG
media_image1.png
414
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
410
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Specifically, in Eq. 7, “K2CO3” should be “K2SO3” and in Eq. 10, “Cs2CO3” should be “Cs2SO3”, which is readily apparent from the end result of each equation being a sulfate (-SO4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1 – 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaun (U.S. Patent No. 9,065,118 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaun discloses an electrochemical cell (Title; Abstract) comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (Title; Abstract; Figure 2; and at least disclosure at columns 10 -11), wherein the separator is electrically insulating and ionically conductive (ibid: noting a polymer separator that is porous to ions; e.g. Figure 1b, etc.); an electrolyte operatively disposed between the positive and negative electrodes and interfacing with the separator to conduct ions between the positive and negative electrodes (ibid); and a porous ceramic powder (ibid, but especially col. 10, line 37 bridging col. 11, line 65: porous ceramic such as MgO and alumina, Al2O3) impregnated with an intermediate oxidation state alkali metal compound (noting in Title; Abstract and at least col. 11, line 66 bridging col. 12, line 19, the teaching that the compound LiNO2; i.e. lithium nitrite, is part of the electrolyte solution which is explicitly taught as impregnating and filling the porous of the porous separator including the porous ceramic material) coupled to one of the separator and the positive electrode (noting that the compound is within the separator and, therefore, necessarily coupled to it, but also the separator is “coated” onto the electrodes, which also necessarily means the compound is ‘coupled’ to the electrodes).
Regarding claims 2 - 5, Kaun discloses preferentially including lithium nitrite as taught above, which reads on these limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Kaun discloses alumina as taught above, which reads on the claimed materials.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kaun discloses that the separator is formed to thickness values within the claimed range (at least col. 8, lines 66 – 67) and the separator is, effectively, ‘coated on’ the positive electrode per Figure 2. As such, the separator containing the porous ceramic particles as claimed is deemed to read on these limitations (though, see also the separate 103(a) rejection on these claims below).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kaun discloses the porous ceramic particles as a filler in the separator at a 5 – 50 wt% loading (see the columns 10 – 11 citations above).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaun as applied above.
Kaun is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 8, while Kaun discloses a volume percentage of the LiNO2 components, they do not disclose the claimed weight percent (e.g. see col. 11, lines 20 – 46).
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the weight percentage of the intermediate oxidation state alkali metal through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Kaun regarding the desire to include this compound within the impregnating electrolyte. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 7 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaun as applied above, and further in view of Gao et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0047823 A1).
Kaun is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 7, Kaun fails to disclose the claimed lithiated zeolites as the porous ceramic material.
However, lithiated zeolite ceramic particles are known in the art as porous ceramic particles for use in separators, etc., including in combination with the ‘porous ceramic particles’ of alumina or MgO as taught in the Kaun reference, as taught by Gao et al. (Paragraphs 0039 – 0042). Gao et al. further teaches that these porous ceramic particles could serve a double function of absorbing unwanted compounds, as well as their similar porous use taught by Kaun (i.e. being impregnated by the electrolyte, which would necessarily happen for the same reasons as the other porous materials in the separator are impregnated by the Kaun disclosure/process).
Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, using only alumina or MgO versus using a mixture of lithiated zeolites meeting the claimed limitations and alumina or MgO (etc.) are functional equivalents in the field of suitable porous ceramic mixtures for use in/on separators, as taught by Gao et al. above. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 9, Gao et al. disclose using the porous particles as a coating layer on the separator (versus being intermixed therein) also provides benefits to the cycle life of the battery (at least Paragraphs 0039 and 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Kaun discloses the desire to minimize the thickness of the separator and the Examiner deems that the exact thickness of the coating layer would have been within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize. Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Kaun regarding the desire to minimize the overall thickness of the separator. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the mass loading of the porous ceramic coating layer through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in both Gao et al. and Kaun regarding the volume percentages and benefits of these materials (noting Gao et al. example uses 40 weight percent zeolite – Paragraph 0068 – while also teaching the loading rate of the active material in the electrodes is in a comparable range of 5 – 15 mg/cm2 in Paragraph 0069; i.e. the claimed range is comparable to what is used as the ‘active material’ in other layers, for example). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
January 21, 2026