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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (claims 1-7, 9 and 11) in the reply filed on 10/21/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 9 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.
Claims 3 and 6 recite “the filler is contained…” in line 3, it is unclear if this is referring to the filler containing both filler A and filler B or if it is referring one of filler A or Filler B. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be treated as the filler containing both filler A and filler B.
Claim 9 recites “…and a negative electrode, the positive electrode…being disposed in this order” in lines 3-6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if applicant meant to have the negative electrode could be on both the positive electrode and the separator. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be treated as if there is a semicolon after “a negative electrode” in line 3 and thus ‘the negative electrode’ is separated from the positive electrode by the battery separator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US 20190044118).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, Sakurai discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer ([0059] heat-resistant adhesive porous layer) including: a resin containing an amide bond ([0061] para-aromatic polyamide); and a filler ([0094]) , the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer having a porosity of not less than 75% ([0107] 80%), and the filler containing a filler A having an average particle diameter of not more than 0.04 µm, and a filler B having an average particle diameter of not less than 0.1 µm ([0096] filler is a combination of two or more kinds thereof; [0095] average particle size is 0.01 µm-5 µm which overlaps with the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 6, Sakurai discloses wherein the filler contains a filler having a spherical shape ([0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurai discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator (abstract) comprising: a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component ([0039]); and the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer according to claim 1 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous film (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Sakurai discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising: a positive electrode ([0154]); the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator according to claim 7 (abstract); and a negative electrode ([0154]); the positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator, and the negative electrode being disposed in this order ([0154]).
Regarding claim 11, Sakurai discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0154]) comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator according to claim 7 ([0154]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US 20190044118) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US20120258349).
Regarding claim 2, Sakurai discloses where the filler is a combination of two or more kinds there of ([0096]) but does not explicitly disclose where the filler A is contained in an amount of not less than 10% by weight and the filler B is contained in an amount of not less than 30% by weight with respect to a total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer.
Hayakawa discloses a separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery ([0002]). Hayakawa further discloses where the porosity of the layer is controlled by the pore diameter and or the weight ratio of the inorganic particles to the binder ([0031]).
As the porosity and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said filler amount of the heat-resistant porous layer, with said porosity and operating efficiency both changing as the ratio of the filler with respect to the total weight is changed, the precise amount of filler A and filler B would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed filler A and filler B amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, amount of filler A and filler B in the heat-resistant porous layer of Sakurai to obtain the desired balance between the porosity and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0294079 discloses a battery separator [0001-0002]; filler [0367] having a combination [0350]; para-aromatic polyamide as the resin [0096]; filler having a spherical shape [0350].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754