DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 12/30/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2023 and 6/28/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed on 12/30/2025 are sufficient to cure the previous specification objections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/06/2025.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. (US 2020/0335757 A1) in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2025/0112332 A1, priority filed on 1/26/2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Horie et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator, [0027], [0092]) comprising:
a porous film (polyolefin porous film, [0028], [0092]) containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (see [0095]); and
a porous layer (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer, [0029], [0092]) formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous film (formed on at least one surface of the polyolefin porous film, [0029], [0092]),
the porous layer containing a resin (resin, [0012], [0042]),
the porous layer having an air permeability of not more than 500 sec/100 mL in terms of Gurley values (30 s/100 mL to 80 s/100 mL, see [0073]).
Horie et al. does not teach
the porous layer having an open area ratio of not more than 0.05%,
where the open area ratio is calculated from a value that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer with use of a scanning electron microscope and binarizing a resultant image of the surface with use of image processing software.
Mizuno et al. teaches the porous layer having an open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0055]) of not more than 0.05% (0%, [0055]; notes: examples 3, 5-9 all have 0% crack area ratio, table 1, [0141]-[0142])
where the open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0102]) is calculated from a value (calculating the area ratio of the cracks in the total area of the measurement area, [0102]) that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer (surface of the layer, [0102]) with use of a scanning electron microscope (by SEM, [0102]) and binarizing (binarization processing, [0102]) a resultant image (SEM image, [0102]) of the surface with use of image processing software (image analysis software, [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the porous layer taught by Horie et al. to have 0% crack area ratio calculated from measuring the surface of the layer on SEM and binarization processing of the SEM image with use of image analysis software taught by Mizuno et al. because the discharge voltage decreases during cycle as the crack area ratio increases and thus causing deterioration of the cycle characteristics (see Mizuno et al. [0055], [0144]).
Regarding Claim 2, Horie et al. in view of Mizuno et al. does not teach wherein the porous layer has a porosity of not less than 40% and not more than 80%.
Horie et al. teaches wherein the porous layer has a porosity of not less than 40% and not more than 80% (20% to 90% by volume, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the porous layer taught by Horie et al. in view of Mizuno et al. such that the porous layer has a porosity of not less than 40% and not more than 80% as taught by Horie et al. to achieve sufficient ion permeability (see Horie et al. [0072]).
Regarding Claim 3, Horie et al. in view of Mizuno et al. teaches wherein the resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin, a (meth)acrylate-based resin, a fluorine-containing resin, a polyamide-based resin, a polyester- based resin, and a water-soluble polymer (see Horie et al. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Horie et al. in view of Mizuno et al. teaches wherein the polyamide-based resin is an aramid resin (see Horie et al. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, Horie et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member, [0031], [0110]) comprising:
a positive electrode (positive electrode, [0032], [0110]);
the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator, [0027], [0092], [0033], [0110]) comprising:
a porous film (polyolefin porous film, [0028], [0092]) containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (see [0095]); and
a porous layer (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer, [0029], [0092]) formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous film (formed on at least one surface of the polyolefin porous film, [0029], [0092]),
the porous layer containing a resin (resin, [0012], [0042]),
the porous layer having an air permeability of not more than 500 sec/100 mL in terms of Gurley values (30 s/100 mL to 80 s/100 mL, see [0073]); and
a negative electrode (negative electrode, [0034], [0110]),
the positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator, and the negative electrode being disposed in this order (arranged in this order, see [0035], [0110]).
Horie et al. does not teach
the porous layer having an open area ratio of not more than 0.05%,
where the open area ratio is calculated from a value that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer with use of a scanning electron microscope and binarizing a resultant image of the surface with use of image processing software.
Mizuno et al. teaches the porous layer having an open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0055]) of not more than 0.05% (0%, [0055]; notes: examples 3, 5-9 all have 0% crack area ratio, table 1, [0141]-[0142])
where the open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0102]) is calculated from a value (calculating the area ratio of the cracks in the total area of the measurement area, [0102]) that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer (surface of the layer, [0102]) with use of a scanning electron microscope (by SEM, [0102]) and binarizing (binarization processing, [0102]) a resultant image (SEM image, [0102]) of the surface with use of image processing software (image analysis software, [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the porous layer taught by Horie et al. to have 0% crack area ratio calculated from measuring the surface of the layer on SEM and binarization processing of the SEM image with use of image analysis software as taught by Mizuno et al. because the discharge voltage decreases during cycle as the crack area ratio increases and thus causing deterioration of the cycle characteristics (see Mizuno et al. [0055], [0144]).
Regarding Claim 6, Horie et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, [0037], [0110]) comprising
the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator, [0027], [0037], [0092]) comprising:
a porous film (polyolefin porous film, [0028], [0092]) containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (see [0095]); and
a porous layer (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer, [0029], [0092]) formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous film (formed on at least one surface of the polyolefin porous film, [0029], [0092]),
the porous layer containing a resin (resin, [0012], [0042]),
the porous layer having an air permeability of not more than 500 sec/100 mL in terms of Gurley values (30 s/100 mL to 80 s/100 mL, see [0073]).
Horie et al. does not teach
the porous layer having an open area ratio of not more than 0.05%,
where the open area ratio is calculated from a value that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer with use of a scanning electron microscope and binarizing a resultant image of the surface with use of image processing software.
Mizuno et al. teaches the porous layer having an open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0055]) of not more than 0.05% (0%, [0055]; notes: examples 3, 5-9 all have 0% crack area ratio, table 1, [0141]-[0142])
where the open area ratio (crack area ratio, [0102]) is calculated from a value (calculating the area ratio of the cracks in the total area of the measurement area, [0102]) that has been obtained by measuring a surface of the porous layer (surface of the layer, [0102]) with use of a scanning electron microscope (by SEM, [0102]) and binarizing (binarization processing, [0102]) a resultant image (SEM image, [0102]) of the surface with use of image processing software (image analysis software, [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the porous layer taught by Horie et al. to have 0% crack area ratio calculated from measuring the surface of the layer on SEM and binarization processing of the SEM image with use of image analysis software as taught by Mizuno et al. because the discharge voltage decreases during cycle as the crack area ratio increases and thus causing deterioration of the cycle characteristics (see Mizuno et al. [0055], [0144]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) see remarks filed on 12/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference Iwata et al. (US 2020/0335760) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 8:45 AM - 4:45 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723