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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Newly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Group 2, claim 21 and Group I, claims 1-10 and 12-19 are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the dry peeling force between separators could be determined using a different process such as a 180o peeling test.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 11/24/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10, 12-19 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 21 has been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 11 and 20 are cancelled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 112 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/26/2025.
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.
3. Claim 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “on two pieces of separators” in claim 2, line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear because pieces of separators have not been previously cited so it is unclear if the separators are referencing the previously cited inner separator and outer separator or attempting to introduce new separators, further it is not clear if the two pieces refers to the previously cited first straight sections or a different portion of the inner and outer separator. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitations will be interpreted as “on the first straight section of the inner separator and the first straight section of the outer separator”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Pub. No. CN 207199769 U) in view of Shang et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Annaka et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Nishiura et al. (Pub. No. JP 2019121508 A) in view of Ohinshi et al. (Pub. No. US 20110171535 A1) and further in view of Babinec et al. (Pub. No. US 20100261065 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a lithium battery (lithium ion battery, see [45]), comprising a wound core (lithium ion battery core, see [34], see Fig. 1 where components are wound, the examiner would like to note the lithium ion battery core is the core used in the lithium battery as shown between [34] and [46] the components are the same) wherein the wound core (lithium ion battery core, see [34], see Fig. 1) is formed by stacking and winding (see [46], components are wound) an inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]), a first electrode sheet (10, Fig. 1, [34]), an outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) and a second electrode sheet (20, Fig. 1, [34]), and the first electrode sheet (10, Fig. 1, [34]) and the second electrode sheet (20, Fig. 1, [34]) have opposite polarity (see [34] where 10 is a cathode and 20 is an anode meaning opposite polarity); the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) is located at an innermost layer (see where clamping and first straight section are labelled in A. Fig. 1 below, 30 is present) of the wound core (lithium ion battery core, see [34], see Fig. 1), and each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) has a clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 below below), a first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 below) connected with the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 below) and located behind the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 below, see clamping section is the beginning of the wound core, and first straight section is connected and follows behind it), and a tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 below) extending beyond a tail end (tail end of 10, A. Fig. 1 below) of the first electrode sheet (10, Fig. 1, [34], see A. Fig. 1 below where the tail laminating section is past the tail end of 10), wherein the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 below) is located in front of the first electrode sheet (10, Fig. 1, [34], see in A. Fig. 1 below where the first straight section is ), and the tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 below) is a separator end (see A. Fig. 1 below, the tail laminating section is the end of both separators), and the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 below), the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 below) and the tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 below) of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) are respectively laminated with the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 below), the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 below) and the tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 below) of the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34], see A. Fig. 1 below where the separators are laminated together in the clamping, first straight, and tail laminating sections); wherein the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) each comprise a base film (301, Fig. 5/6, [37]), a ceramic layer (302, Fig. 5/6, [37]), and an adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]), but Yang fails to teach a tab, a dry peeling force between the first straight section of the inner separator and the first straight section of the outer separator is less than 8 N/m, wherein when a dry peeling is performed, each of the inner separator and the outer separator has a glue transfer ratio of 20-40%, the ceramic layer comprises ceramic particles and an adhesive polymer, and a particle size distribution of the ceramic particles is: D10 particle size being 0.15-0.3 μm, D50 particle size being 0.35-0.45 μm, D90 particle size being 0.6-0.8 μm, and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Shang teaches a tab (14, Fig. 1, see [0086]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang to add a tab as taught by Sheng for realizing the charging and discharging of the battery, and facilitate electrical connection between the battery and other members (see [0086] of Sheng). Further Yang teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Yang in view of Sheng fails to teach a dry peeling force between the first straight section of the inner separator and the first straight section of the outer separator is less than 8 N/m.
However, Annaka teaches a dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264]) between the first straight section (see [0264] the blocking strength is between opposing faces of separators, therefore this value applies to any section of the separators pressed together in contact with each other) of the inner separator (one of the two pressed pieces, see [0264]) and the first straight section see [0264] the blocking strength is between opposing faces of separators, therefore this value applies to any section of the separator in contact with each other) of the outer separator (the other of the two pressed pieces, see [0264]) is less than 8 N/m (less than 4 N/m, see [0264-0265] where the blocking strength is less than 4 N/m) wherein the dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264]) is a dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264]) of the ceramic surface (functional layer, see [0264] wherein the functional layers are facing each other, see Fig. 2 and [0052] wherein the functional layer is inorganic particles and particulate polymer protruding out of the inorganic functional layer making up a ceramic layer as 13, and adhesive layer of 12 with the polymer particles protruding) of each of the inner separator (one of the two pressed pieces, see [0264]) and the outer separator (the other of the two pressed pieces, see [0264]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng such that the blocking strength between the first straight section of 30 and 32 wherein the layer comprising 302 and 303 are opposite to each other is 4 N/m as taught by Annaka to inhibit blocking well and exhibit higher blocking resistance (see [0264] of Annaka). Further Yang in view of Sheng teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Yang in view of Sheng and further in view of Annaka fail to teach the ceramic layer comprises ceramic particles and an adhesive polymer.
However, Nishiura teaches a ceramic layer (filler layer, see [28]) comprising ceramic particles (inorganic particles, see [28], see [108] specific example is Aluminum oxide which is a ceramic particle) and an adhesive polymer (binder resin, see [28], see [108] specific example is PVA which is an adhesive polymer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng and further in view of Annaka such that the ceramic layer is formed using aluminum oxide and PVA as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng and further in view of Annaka teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka and further in view of Nishiura fails to teach and a particle size distribution of the ceramic particles is: D10 particle size being 0.15-0.3 μm, D50 particle size being 0.35-0.45 μm, D90 particle size being 0.6-0.8 μm, and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm.
However, Ohinshi teaches wherein a particle size distribution of the ceramic particles (inorganic particles, see [0012], [0022] where the particles are ceramic) is: D10 particle size being 0.15 – 0.3 μm (see [0012]. 0.5(D50) which is 50-250 nm which overlaps the claimed range, and see [0051] specific example of 220 nm which is within the claimed range), D50 particle size being 0.35-0.45 μm (see [0012], 100-500 nm which overlaps the claimed range, and see [0051] specific example of 430 nm which falls within the claimed range), D90 particle size being 0.6-0.8 μm (see [0012], 2(D50) or less, so less than 200-1000 nm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka and further in view of Nishiura such that the D10, D50, and D90 are within the ranges as taught by Ohinshi to have uniform current density during charging and discharging (see [0018] of Ohinshi), and further it would be obvious to modify the ranges as taught to be within the claimed ranges as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Ohinshi teaches the D10 and D90 are result effective variable to prevent generate cracks and pinholes (see [0020] of Ohinshi) and D50 is a result effective variable for preventing short circuits in the early phase (see [0080] of Ohinshi). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka and further in view of Nishiura teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Further, Babinec teaches ceramic particles (inorganic particle, see [0087], see [0086] where the particles are ceramic material), with a D100 particle size being less than 4.5 μm (3-4 μm, see [0087] maximum particle size).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura and further in view of Ohinshi such that the D100 particles size is 3-4 μm as taught by Babinec to achieve good lamination strength, porosity, and conductivity (see [0008] of Babinec). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura and further in view of Ohinshi teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein when a dry peeling is performed, each of the inner separator and the outer separator has a glue transfer ratio of 20-40%.
However, the lithium battery as taught by Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec exhibits the same structure and composition as the lithium battery as claimed above, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the glue transfer ratio of the lithium battery as taught by Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec was measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the glue transfer ratio to be within or overlap the claimed range in a way that obviates the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein the dry peeling force is a peeling force measured by performing a 90o peeling test on two pieces of separators under conditions of a hot-pressing temperature of 100oC, a pressure of 0.2 MPa, and a hot pressing time of 10 s.
However, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches the dry peeling force as claimed, and the same structure and composition of the lithium battery, therefore it is the Examiner’s Position that if the dry peeling force was measured in the same way it would still fall within the claimed range or overlap the claimed range in a way that obviates the claimed range. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein a surface (below 301, Fig. 5, above 301, Fig. 6) of the base film (301, Fig. 5/6, [37]) is provided with the ceramic layer (302, Fig. 5/6, [37]) or the adhesive layer, and an outer surface of the ceramic layer (302, Fig. 5/6, [37], outer surface is surface not directly contacting 301) is provided with the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]); and a surface of each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) having both the ceramic layer (302, Fig. 5/6, [37]) and the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]) is a ceramic surface (Surface comprising 302 and 303, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, see [28-29] where Fig. 5 and 6 can be either of 30 or 32, from here on Fig. 5 will represent the layering of 30 and Fig. 6 will represent the layering of 32), and at least one surface of each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is the ceramic surface (Surface comprising 302 and 303, Fig. 5 and top surface comprising 302 and 303 of Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein surfaces of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and of the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) that are opposite to each other on the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 above above), the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 above above) and the tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 above above) are ceramic surfaces (Surface comprising 302 and 303, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, as stated above Fig. 5 is layering of 30, Fig. 6 is layering of 32, see Fig. 5 and 6 are mirror opposites of each other and therefore their surfaces including the ceramic surface are opposite to each other, further since this is the layering of the entire separator it would be consistent in the clamping, first straight, and tail laminating section).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein the dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264] of Annaka, see modification above) is a dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264] of Annaka, see modification above) of the ceramic surface (Surface comprising 302 and 303, Fig. 5 and top surface comprising 302 and 303 of Fig. 6) of each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34], see Fig. 5 and 6 where the ceramic surfaces are facing each other, see modification above where the functional layer, see [0264] of Annaka is the ceramic surface and it is these surfaces wherein the dry peeling force is found).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) each comprise a base film (301, Fig. 5/6, [37]) and an adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]), and a surface of the base film (301, Fig. 5/6, [37]) on which the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]) is disposed (surface of 301 with only 303, Fig. 5, and lower 303 in Fig. 6 where the 303 is disposed on 302 which is disposed on 301 meaning disposed on the surface) is an adhesive surface (surface of 301 with only 303, Fig. 5, and lower 303 in Fig. 6), and at least one surface of each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is the adhesive surface (surface of 301 with only 303, Fig. 5, and lower 303 in Fig. 6, Fig. 5 represents inner separator, Fig. 6 represents outer separator).
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein surfaces of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and of the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) that are opposite to each other on the clamping section (clamping section, see A. Fig. 1 above above), the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 above above) and the tail laminating section (tail laminating section, see A. Fig. 1 above above) are the adhesive surfaces (surface of 301 with only 303, Fig. 5, and lower surface 303 of Fig. 6, Fig. 5 represents inner separator, Fig. 6 represents outer separator, Fig. 5 and 6 represent the separator layering, the adhesive surfaces are on opposite sides of each other, and would be present in the clamping, first straight, and tail laminating sections as it is the layering of the entire inner and outer separator).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein a length of the clamping section of the inner separator and a length of the clamping section of the outer separator are each 1-15% of a width of the wound core; and/or a length of the first straight section of the inner separator and a length of the first straight section of the outer separator are each 40-50% of the width of the wound core.
However, the wound core as taught by Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec is similar in structure and it is the examiners position there is no unexpected result associated with the claimed range that would be different from the structure as taught, therefore there is no evidence of criticality of the limitation of the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein both the tail laminating section of the inner separator and the tail laminating section of the outer separator have a length ≥5 mm; and/or a length of the tail laminating section of the inner separator and a length of the tail laminating section of the outer separator are each 0.1-10% of a width of the wound core.
However, the wound core as taught by Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec is similar in structure and it is the examiners position there is no unexpected result associated with the claimed range that would be different from the structure as taught, therefore there is no evidence of criticality of the limitation of the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein the dry peeling force (blocking strength, see [0264] of Annaka, see modification above) of each of the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 above) of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the first straight section (first straight section, see A. Fig. 1 above) of the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is less than 5 N/m (less than 4 N/m, see [0264-0265] where the blocking strength is less than 4 N/m, see Annaka and modification above).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein each of the inner separator and the outer separator is selected from one of a water-based separator, an oil-based mixed-coating separator and a pure oil-based separator.
However, Nishiura further teaches a pure oil-based separator (Separator, see [108], separator of example 1) wherein the adhesive layer (adhesive layer, [109]) comprises an adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109]), and the adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109]) has a molecular weight of 10000 to 2000000 (10000 to 2000000, see [44]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that each of the inner separator and outer separator are formed as a pure oil based separator wherein the adhesive layer is an adhesive polymer with a molecular weight of 10000 to 2000000 as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein each of the inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is the pure oil-based separator (Separator, see [108], separator of example 1 of Nishiura, see modification above) and the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]) comprises an adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109] of Nishiura, see modification above), but fails to teach wherein the adhesive polymer has a molecular weight of 0.3 to 1 million.
However, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein the adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109] of Nishiura, see modification above) has a molecular weight of 0.3 to 1 million (10000 to 2000000, see [44] of Nishiura, see modification above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the range of the molecular weight stays within the claimed range of 10000 to 1000000 as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Nishiura teaches the molecular weight is a result effective variable for heat resistance of the separator and viscosity of the adhesive layer (see [44] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive polymer, and the adhesive polymer is selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene copolymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate and polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer.
However, Nishiura further teaches an adhesive layer (adhesive layer, [109]) comprising an adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109]), and the adhesive polymer (PVA, see [109]) is selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene polymer, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene copolymer, butadiene-acrylonitrile polymer, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA, see [109]), polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate and polyacrylic acid-styrene polymer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive polymer of PVA as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 17, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 0.5 μm to 3 μm, and a packing density of 0.6 g/m.sup.2 to 3.0 g/m.sup.2.
However, Nishiura further teaches wherein the adhesive layer (adhesive layer, see [41]) has a thickness of 0.5 μm to 3 μm (0.3 μm to 1 μm, see [41]), and a packing density of 0.6 g/m.sup.2 to 3.0 g/m.sup.2 (0.1 g/m.sup.2 to 1.0 g/m.sup.2 see [40]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the adhesive layer has a thickness in a range of 0.3 μm to 1 μm as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura) and further modify the range to stay between the claimed range of 0.5 μm to 1 μm as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Nishiura teaches the thickness is a result effective variable for adhesiveness between the adhesive layer and other layers (see [41] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the adhesive layer has a packing density in a range of 0.1 g/m.sup.2 to 1.0 g/m.sup.2 as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura) and further modify the range to stay between the claimed range of 0.6 g/m.sup.2 to 1.0 g/m.sup.2 as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Nishiura teaches the packing density is a result effective variable for adhesion and air resistance (see [40] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 18, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein a content of the ceramic particles accounts for 85-92% of a total amount of the ceramic layer.
However, Nishiura further teaches a content of the ceramic particles (inorganic particles, see [28], see [108] specific example is Aluminum oxide which is a ceramic particle) accounts for 85-92% (85-99.97% by mass, see [28]) of a total amount of the ceramic layer (filler layer, see [28] where it is relative to total mass of filler layer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the ceramic particles accounts for 85-99.97% of a total amount of the ceramic layer as taught by Nishiura to have a separator with low electrical resistance (see [7] of Nishiura) and further modify the range to stay between the claimed range of 85-92% as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the ceramic particle mass percentage is a result effective variable for electrical resistance of the separator (see [28] of Nishiura). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 19, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches wherein the ceramic particles (inorganic particles, see [28] of Nishiura, see [108] of Nishiura the specific example is Aluminum oxide which is a ceramic particle, see modification above) are selected from at least one of alumina particles (aluminum oxide, see [108] of Nishiura, see modification above), boehmite particles, and magnesia particles.
6. Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Pub. No. CN 207199769 U) in view of Shang et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Annaka et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Nishiura et al. (Pub. No. JP 2019121508 A) in view of Ohinshi et al. (Pub. No. US 20110171535 A1) in view of Babinec et al. (Pub. No. US 20100261065 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Qui et al (Pub. No. CN 113728504 A).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein each of the inner separator and the outer separator is selected from one of a water-based separator, an oil-based mixed-coating separator and a pure oil-based separator.
However, Qui teaches a water-based separator (110, Fig. 1, [62]) wherein the adhesive layer (12, Fig. 1, see [62]) comprises an adhesive polymer (polymer binder, see [64]), a binder (thickener, see [65], see [67] increases viscosity and is considered the binder in this composition) and a dispersing agent (wetting agent, [65], see [67] where the wetting agent helps with dispersion, therefore will be considered the dispersant); wherein a content of the adhesive polymer (polymer binder, see [64]) accounts for 92-96% (98%-70%, see [64] which overlaps the claimed range, and see specific example in [118] of 95% which is within the claimed range), a content of the binder (thickener, see [65], see [67] increases viscosity and is considered the binder in this composition) accounts for 1-15% (1-15%, see [64]) and a content of the dispersing agent (wetting agent, [65], see [67] where the wetting agent helps with dispersion, therefore will be considered the dispersant) accounts for 1-15% (1-15%, see [64]) based on a total mass of the adhesive layer (12, Fig. 1, see [62], see [64] the weights are a weight ratio, however, in example 1 [118] the only other component is an auxiliary binder, and the dispersant and thickener along with the auxiliary binder comprise 5% of the total mass, therefore is the examiners position the weight ratios are similar or identical to being part of total mass of the adhesive layer in a way that would not produce unexpected results).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec such that the inner separator and the outer separator is a water-based separator comprising an adhesive polymer a binder and dispersant in their respective weight percents as taught by Qui to prevent thermal runaway (see [6] of Qui). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi and further in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 13, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec and further in view of Qui teaches wherein each of the inner separator (inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is the water-based separator (110, Fig. 1, [62] of Qui, see modification above), and the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]) comprises an adhesive polymer (polymer binder, see [64] of Qui, see modification above), a binder (thickener, see [65], see [67] increases viscosity and is considered the binder in this composition, of Qui, see modification above) and a dispersing agent (wetting agent, [65], see [67] where the wetting agent helps with dispersion, therefore will be considered the dispersant, of Qui, see modification above); wherein a content of the adhesive polymer (polymer binder, see [64] of Qui, see modification above) accounts for 92-96% (98%-70%, see [64] which overlaps the claimed range, and see specific example in [118] of 95% which is within the claimed range, of Qui, see modification above), but fails to teach wherein a content of the binder accounts for 2.5-5.5%, and a content of the dispersing agent accounts for 1.5-2.5% based on a total mass of the adhesive layer. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec and further in view of Qui teaches a content of the binder (thickener, see [65], see [67] increases viscosity and is considered the binder in this composition, of Qui, see modification above) accounts for 2.5-5.5% (1-15%, see [64], of Qui, see modification above) and a content of the dispersing agent (wetting agent, [65], see [67] where the wetting agent helps with dispersion, therefore will be considered the dispersant, of Qui, see modification above) accounts for 1.5-2.5% (1-15%, see [64] of Qui, see modification above) based on a total mass of the adhesive layer (12, Fig. 1, see [62], see [64] the weights are a weight ratio, however, in example 1 [118] the only other component is an auxiliary binder, and the dispersant and thickener along with the auxiliary binder comprise 5% of the total mass, therefore is the examiners position the weight ratios are similar or identical to being part of total mass of the adhesive layer in a way that would not produce unexpected results, of Qui, see modification above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec and further in view of Qui such that the range of weight percent of binder and thickener stay within the claimed range as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Qui teaches the mass percentage of the thickening agent and wetting agent (binder and dispersing agent) are result effective variables for uniform coating and connection of positive and negative electrodes to the separator (see [65] of Qui). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec and further in view of Qui teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
7. Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Pub. No. CN 207199769 U) in view of Shang et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Annaka et al. (Pub. No. US 20220123443 A1) in view of Nishiura et al. (Pub. No. JP 2019121508 A) in view of Ohinshi et al. (Pub. No. US 20110171535 A1) in view of Babinec et al. (Pub. No. US 20100261065 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (Pub. No. CN 110859053 B).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec fails to teach wherein each of the inner separator and the outer separator is selected from one of a water-based separator, an oil-based mixed-coating separator and a pure oil-based separator.
However, Yao teaches an oil-based mixed coating separator (composite lithium battery separator, see [71] specific example) wherein the adhesive layer (the layer comprising the adhesive polymer, see [71] adhesive polymer of PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [73] coating in a layer) comprises an adhesive polymer (PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [71]) and ceramic particles (boehmite and lithium phosphate, see [71]); wherein the adhesive polymer (PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [71]) has a content of 30-50% (50%, see math below) and the ceramic particles (boehmite and lithium phosphate, see [71]) have a content of 50-70% (50%, see math below) based on a total amount of the adhesive layer (the layer comprising the adhesive polymer, see [71] adhesive polymer of PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [73] coating in a layer, see [71] the only solids in the layer, meaning total mass of layer is the adhesive polymer and ceramic particles). (Total Mass = 3+2.42+0.430+0.150 = 6, 3/6 = 50%, 2.42+0.430+0.150/6 = 50%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec such that the inner and outer separator are an oil-based mixed-coating separator comprising an adhesive polymer and ceramic particle in 50% mass each as taught by Yao for good liquid absorption retention capacity (see [7] of Yao). Further Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec teaches that modifications can be made (see [52] of Yang).
Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Sheng in view of Annaka in view of Nishiura in view of Ohinshi in view of Babinec and further in view of Yao teaches wherein each of the inner separator (inner separator (30, Fig. 1, see [34]) and the outer separator (outer separator (32, Fig. 1, [34]) is the oil-based mixed-coating separator (composite lithium battery separator, see [71] specific example, see Yao, see modification above) , and the adhesive layer (303, Fig. 5/6, [37]) comprises an adhesive polymer (PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [71], see Yao, see modification above) and ceramic particles (boehmite and lithium phosphate, see [71] see Yao, see modification above); wherein the adhesive polymer (PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [71] see Yao, see modification above) has a content of 30-50% (50%, see math below) and the ceramic particles (boehmite and lithium phosphate, see [71] see Yao, see modification above) have a content of 50-70% (50%, see math below) based on a total amount of the adhesive layer (the layer comprising the adhesive polymer, see [71] adhesive polymer of PVDF and vinylidene chloride copolymer, see [73] coating in a layer, see [71] the only solids in the layer, meaning total mass of layer is the adhesive polymer and ceramic particles see Yao, see modification above). (Total Mass = 3+2.42+0.430+0.150 = 6, 3/6 = 50%, 2.42+0.430+0.150/6 = 50%).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Yang fails to teach technical features (a)-(c). This argument is moot as the rejection of features (a)-(c) are not reliant on the same combination of references and Yang is not used to teach the technical features (a)-(c) and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of references.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Sheng fails to teach technical features (a)-(c). This argument is moot because the Examiner does not rely on Sheng to teach the technical features (a)-(c), and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of the references.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Ueki fails to teach the technical features of (a)-(c), this argument is moot as the current grounds of rejection do not rely on the same combination of references previously applied, and specifically do not rely on the teachings of Ueki.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Nishiura fails to teach the technical features of (a)-(b), this argument is moot as the Examiner does not rely on Nishiura to teach the technical features of (a)-(b). Regarding applicants’ arguments that Nishiura fails to teach the particle size distribution of technical feature (c), this argument is moot because the Examiner merely relies on Nishiura to teach the ceramic layer comprising ceramic particles and an adhesive polymer, and does not rely on Nishiura to teach the particle size distribution of technical feature (c), and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of the references.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Qui fails to teach technical features (a)-(c). This argument is moot because the Examiner does not rely on Qui to teach the technical features (a)-(c), and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of the references.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Yao fails to teach technical features (a)-(c). This argument is moot because the Examiner does not rely on Yao to teach the technical features (a)-(c), and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of the references.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Ohinshi and Babinec individually fail to teach the technical feature (c). The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Ohinshi is relied upon to teach a particle distribution of D10, D50, and D90 and not relied upon to teach D100, and further Babinec is relied upon to teach the particle distribution of D100 and not relied upon to teach D10, D50, and D90 and rejections are not based upon each reference individually, but rather the combination of the teachings of the references. Further, regarding the applicants’ argument that Ohinshi fails to teach the specific range values of D50 and D90. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Ohinshi teaches an overlapping range for the D10, D50, and D90 with a relation between each and gives strong motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ranges to fall within the claimed ranges, as seen in [0020] and [0080] of Ohinshi. Further regarding applicants’ argument that Ohinshi and Babinec fail to provide technical hints regarding the particle size distribution combination of D10, D50, D90, and D100. This argument is moot as the claims do not define any technical hints regarding the particle size distribution combination of D10, D50, D90, and D100 therefore the references relied upon are not required to teach specific technical hints, and each reference provides motivation for combination and therefore as the rejection is not dependent on each reference individually and instead the teachings of the references in combination the particle size distribution of D10, D50, D90, and D100 are taught by combination of Ohinshi in view of Babinec with other references cited.
Further regarding the applicants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining Ohinshi and Babinec with Yang. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first, it is not for the applicant to determine what would and would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Ohinshi, Babinec, and Yang are all directed towards the battery art and include separators having ceramic layers as a part of the separator, further [0020] and [0080] of Ohinshi provides motivation to combine the teachings of Ohinshi and [0008] of Babinec provides motivation to combine the teachings of Babinec with Yang, and as Yang does not disclose a specific particle size distribution, Yang does not teach away from the combination of teachings provided by Ohinshi and Babinec.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Ohinshi and Babinec fail to disclose the technical features (a) and (b). This argument is moot because the Examiner does not rely on Ohinshi and Babinec to teach the technical features (a) and (b), and the rejection is not based upon the teaching of each reference individually, but rather the combination of the references.
Conclusion
9. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights