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
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 19) in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 and 18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II, III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Additionally, in accordance with Applicant’s election of species A to lithium/lithium-ion battery separators, claim 15 has been withdrawn. Claim 7 is also drawn to the non-elected sodium-ion battery and has also been withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 22, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5: there is lack of a hyphen in “nonwoven” of “nonwoven separator” in contrast to other incidences of the word.
Line 7: typo in the phrase “for from”
Claims 2, 11 are also objected to because of the following informalities:
typo in the phrase “for from”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7: typo in “Scavanging”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al, “Mesoporous Cladophora cellulose separators for lithium-ion batteries,” J Power Sources 321 p185-192, 7 May 2016.
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches a non-woven battery separator for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes
(p188 right col para 2: A Cladophora cellulose separator, i.e. “CC separator” or also known as the “CC membrane” in the reference, is taught as forming a non-woven layer, and therefore reads on a non-woven separator; the Abstract teaches the separators are suited for use in batteries; p186 left col para 5 teaches use of ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate electrolytes, which are organic solvent electrolytes),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material,
(p186 left col para 5 to right col para 1-2: Pan teaches preparation of the CC separator, i.e., battery separator, such that it is 100% made of CC powder which results in a cellulosic fiber material as seen in Fig. 4a, therefore it comprises greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Fig. 4a shows the separator has porosity; p190 left col para 1 indicates that the electrolyte-soaked CC separator has ionic conductivity; therefore the separator has sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(p187 right col para 3 teaches the separator is positioned between the two electrodes in a viable battery, thereby preventing electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said non-woven separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging
(p186 left col para 3 teaches that Cladophora cellulose is able to absorb moisture, therefore the separator made of CC can exhibit water scavenging)
Regarding the claim limitation that the separator exhibits water scavenging “subsequent to a heat-treatment procedure of exposure to a temperature of from 105-200°C for from 1-96 hours,” the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claims 2-4, Pan teaches the separator of claim 1. Regarding the claim limitation that the separator exhibits water scavenging subsequent to a heat-treatment procedure of exposure to a temperature of the specified temperature range and duration, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 5, Pan teaches the separator of claim 3. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Pan teaches preparation of the CC separator, i.e., battery separator, such that it is 100% made of CC powder which results in a cellulosic fiber material as seen in Fig. 4a, therefore it comprises greater than 50% by weight of a cellulosic-based fiber material (p186 left col para 5 to right col para 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Pan teaches the separator of claim 1 and also a lithium-ion battery including the separator (Abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Pan teaches the separator of claim 1 and also a lithium-ion battery including the separator (Abstract). Pan also teaches it further comprises an anode of a lithium metal (p187 right col para 3), which is a claimed species.
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.
Claims 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al, “Mesoporous Cladophora cellulose separators for lithium-ion batteries,” J Power Sources 321 p185-192, 7 May 2016 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oxley et al (US 5942354 A).
Regarding claim 11, Pan teaches a non-woven battery separator for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes
(p188 right col para 2: A Cladophora cellulose separator, i.e. “CC separator” or also known as the “CC membrane” in the reference, is taught as forming a non-woven layer, and therefore reads on a non-woven separator; the Abstract teaches the separators are suited for use in batteries; p186 left col para 5 teaches use of ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate electrolytes, which are organic solvent electrolytes),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a fiber material,
(p186 left col para 5 to right col para 1-2: Pan teaches preparation of the CC separator, i.e., battery separator, such that it is 100% made of CC powder which results in a cellulosic fiber material as seen in Fig. 4a, therefore it must comprise greater than 25% by weight of a fiber material)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Fig. 4a shows the separator has porosity; p190 left col para 1 indicates that the electrolyte-soaked CC separator has ionic conductivity; therefore the separator has sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(p187 right col para 3 teaches the separator is positioned between the two electrodes in a viable battery, thereby preventing electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said non-woven separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging
(p186 left col para 3 teaches that Cladophora cellulose is able to absorb moisture, therefore the separator made of CC can exhibit water scavenging)
Regarding the claim limitation that the separator exhibits water scavenging “subsequent to a heat-treatment procedure of exposure to a temperature of from 105-200°C for from 1-96 hours,” the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Pan is silent regarding “such fiber material which shows uptake of more than 3% when tested according to TAPPI-ANSI T 441.” However, Pan teaches the water uptake of the fiber material can affect its mechanical robustness given water’s function as a plasticizer (p186 left col para 3).
In the same field of endeavor, Oxley teaches nonwoven battery separators made of fiber materials may include plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) which can be employed to regulate moisture retention to produce a battery separator which has sufficient flexibility and improved robustness from brittleness (Col 9 lines 35-44, Col 5: lines 15-24). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated and adjusted the amount of a plasticizing additive such as poly(ethylene oxide) as a result-effective variable to regulate moisture in Pan’s fiber material and optimize its plasticity for handling, as taught by Oxley, and consequently would have the claimed water uptake properties.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the separator of claim 11. Pan further teaches it can be used in a lithium-ion battery (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Pan teaches a non-woven battery separator for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes
(p188 right col para 2: A Cladophora cellulose separator, i.e. “CC separator” or also known as the “CC membrane” in the reference, is taught as forming a non-woven layer, and therefore reads on a non-woven separator; the Abstract teaches the separators are suited for use in batteries; p186 left col para 5 teaches use of ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate electrolytes, which are organic solvent electrolytes),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material,
(p186 left col para 5 to right col para 1-2: Pan teaches preparation of the CC separator, i.e., battery separator, such that it is 100% made of CC powder which results in a cellulosic fiber material as seen in Fig. 4a, therefore it comprises greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Fig. 4a shows the separator has porosity; p190 left col para 1 indicates that the electrolyte-soaked CC separator has ionic conductivity; therefore the separator has sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(p187 right col para 3 teaches the separator is positioned between the two electrodes in a viable battery, thereby preventing electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said non-woven separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging
(p186 left col para 3 teaches that Cladophora cellulose is able to absorb moisture, therefore the separator made of CC can exhibit water scavenging)
Pan is silent regarding “wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging of greater than 0.002 grams H2O per gram of separator when tested according to the Water Scavenging Test Method described herein using 150 grams of dried separator in 5 mL of electrolyte solvent doped with 1000 ppm of water, after sitting for at least 24 hours.” However, Pan teaches the water uptake of the fiber material can affect its mechanical robustness given water’s function as a plasticizer (p186 left col para 3).
In the same field of endeavor, Oxley teaches nonwoven battery separators made of fiber materials may include plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) which can be employed to regulate moisture retention to produce a battery separator which has sufficient flexibility and improved robustness from brittleness (Col 9 lines 35-44, Col 5: lines 15-24). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated and adjusted the amount of a plasticizing additive such as poly(ethylene oxide) as a result-effective variable to regulate moisture in Pan’s fiber material and optimize its plasticity for handling, as taught by Oxley, and consequently would have the claimed water scavenging properties.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al, “Mesoporous Cladophora cellulose separators for lithium-ion batteries,” J Power Sources 321 p185-192, 7 May 2016 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al (EP 1769836 A1).
Evidentiary support is provided by “axial,” Dictionary.com, 2026.
Regarding claim 13, Pan teaches the separator of claim 1 but is silent regarding nanofibers with maximum axial dimension of less than 500 nanometers.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono teaches cellulose nonwoven fabric which can function as a separator in an electric storage device and that the maximum fiber diameter of fibers constituting the nonwoven fabric is 500 nm or less for advantages such as high performance of anti-short resistance for an electric storage device ([0017] lines 11-19).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Pan’s separator to utilize fibers with maximum fiber diameters of 500 nanometers or less for the benefit of enhanced anti-short resistance in the battery, as taught by Ono. Given that Dictionary.com defines “axial” as “situated in or on an axis” (def 2), and barring a special definition of “axial” in the instant specification, fiber diameter is situated on an axis, and the combination of Pan in view of Ono teaches nanofibers with maximum axial dimension of less than 500 nanometers.
Regarding claim 17, Pan teaches the separator of claim 1 but is silent regarding nanofibers with maximum axial dimension of less than 100 nanometers.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono teaches cellulose nonwoven fabric which can function as a separator in an electric storage device and that the maximum fiber diameter of fibers constituting the nonwoven fabric is 500 nm or less for advantages such as high performance of anti-short resistance for an electric storage device ([0017] lines 11-19).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Pan’s separator to utilize fibers with maximum fiber diameters of 500 nanometers or less for the benefit of enhanced anti-short resistance in the battery, as taught by Ono. Given that Dictionary.com defines “axial” as “situated in or on an axis” (def 2), and barring a special definition of “axial” in the specification, fiber diameter is situated on an axis, and the combination of Pan in view of Ono teaches nanofibers with maximum axial dimension of less than 500 nanometers, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claims 1-5, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oxley et al (US 5942354 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oxley teaches a non-woven battery separator (Abstract),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material,
(Col 6 lines 25-40: ““the present invention will coat a noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film to produce a battery separator”; Col 7: lines 32-35 and Col 8: lines 34-42 describe the coating as comprising of fibers; therefore the noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film is a cellulosic fiber material, and given that it is the battery separator, the separator necessarily comprises greater than 25% by weight of the cellulosic fiber material)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Col 1: lines 25-28 teach “battery separators must be permeable to electrons and/or ions”, therefore indicating sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(Col 1: lines 22-26 teach battery separators are physical barriers interposed between the anode and cathode which prevent physical contact therebetween, therefore it would provide suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer of the separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging subsequent to a heat-treatment procedure of exposure to a temperature of from 105-200°C for from 1-96 hours.
(Abstract and Col 12: lines 19-28 teach a holding step of the separator at elevated temperatures such as at least 40 or 45°C and at least 8, 16, 24, 48 hours or longer may be used, and the taught temperature ranges and time duration of the treatment overlap 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Col 9: lines 35-44 teaches the separators may be humidified to a sufficient level and may contain humectants or plasticizers which regulate moisture and/or electrolyte retention; the presence of these additives indicate the separator can absorb water and thus can exhibit water scavenging)
Additionally, recitation of intended use for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes does not limit the claimed separator, given that the prior art product teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 2-4, Oxley teaches the separator of claim 1. As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Oxley teaches a holding step of the separator at elevated temperatures such as at least 40 or 45°C and at least 16, 24, 48 hours or longer may be used (Abstract and Col 12: lines 19-28), and the taught temperature ranges and time duration of the treatment overlap 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Oxley teaches the separator of claim 3. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Oxley teaches “the present invention will coat a noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film to produce a battery separator” (Col 6 lines 25-40).
Given that the noncellulosic nonwoven coated with a cellulosic film is a cellulosic-based fiber material that is the battery separator, the separator necessarily comprises greater than 50% by weight of a cellulosic-based fiber material.
Regarding claim 11, Oxley teaches a non-woven battery separator (Abstract),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a fiber material,
(Col 6 lines 25-40: ““the present invention will coat a noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film to produce a battery separator”; Col 7: lines 32-35 and Col 8: lines 34-42 describe the coating as comprising of fibers; therefore the noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film is a fiber material, and given that it is the battery separator, the separator necessarily comprises greater than 25% by weight of the fiber material)
Such fiber material which shows water uptake of more than 3% when tested according to TAPPI-ANSI T 441
(Col 9 lines 35-44, Col 5: lines 15-24 teach the separator may have plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) which can be employed to regulate moisture retention to produce a battery separator which has sufficient flexibility and improved robustness from brittleness. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated an appropriate amount of plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) as a result-effective variable to regulate moisture in the fiber material and optimize its plasticity for handling, and consequently it would have the claimed water uptake properties)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Col 1: lines 25-28 teach “battery separators must be permeable to electrons and/or ions”, therefore indicating sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(Col 1: lines 22-26 teach battery separators are physical barriers interposed between the anode and cathode which prevent physical contact therebetween, therefore it would provide suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer of the separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging subsequent to a heat-treatment procedure of exposure to a temperature of from 105-200°C for from 1-96 hours.
(Abstract and Col 12: lines 19-28 teach a holding step of the separator at elevated temperatures such as at least 40 or 45°C and at least 8, 16, 24, 48 hours or longer may be used, and the taught temperature ranges and time duration of the treatment overlap 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Col 9: lines 35-44 teaches the separators may be humidified to a sufficient level and may contain humectants or plasticizers which regulate moisture and/or electrolyte retention; the presence of these additives indicates the separator can absorb water and thus can exhibit water scavenging)
Additionally, recitation of intended use for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes does not limit the claimed separator, given that the prior art product teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Oxley teaches a non-woven battery separator (Abstract),
Such battery separator comprising greater than 25% by weight of a cellulosic fiber material,
(Col 6 lines 25-40: ““the present invention will coat a noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film to produce a battery separator”; Col 7: lines 32-35 and Col 8: lines 34-42 describe the coating as comprising of fibers; therefore the noncellulosic nonwoven with a cellulosic film is a fiber material, and given that it is the battery separator, the separator necessarily comprises greater than 25% by weight of the fiber material)
Wherein said separator provides sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer therethrough
(Col 1: lines 25-28 teach “battery separators must be permeable to electrons and/or ions”, therefore indicating sufficient porosity for electrolyte ion transfer)
And suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer thereof of said nonwoven separator
(Col 1: lines 22-26 teach battery separators are physical barriers interposed between the anode and cathode which prevent physical contact therebetween, therefore it would provide suitable prevention of electrode contact through at least a single layer of the separator)
And wherein said non-woven separator exhibits water scavenging of greater than 0.002 grams H2O per gram of separator when tested according to the Water Scavenging Test Method described herein using 150 grams of dried separator in 5 mL of electrolyte solvent doped with 1000 ppm of water, after sitting for at least 24 hours.
(Col 9 lines 35-44, Col 5: lines 15-24 teach the separator may have plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) which can be employed to regulate moisture retention to produce a battery separator which has sufficient flexibility and improved robustness from brittleness. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have incorporated an appropriate amount of plasticizing additives such as poly(ethylene oxide) as a result-effective variable to regulate moisture in the fiber material and optimize its plasticity for handling, and consequently it would have the claimed water scavenging properties.
Additionally, recitation of intended use for batteries comprising organic solvent electrolytes does not limit the claimed separator, given that the prior art product teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oxley et al (US 5942354 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heidari et al, “Recent Development of Polyolefin-Based Microporous Separators for Li-Ion Batteries: A Review,” The Chemical Record, 13 Dec 2019.
Evidentiary support is provided by Stich et al, “Drying and moisture resorption behavior of various electrode materials and separators for lithium-ion batteries,” J Power Sources, p84-91, 10 Aug 2017.
Regarding claim 12, Oxley teaches the separator of claim 11. Oxley teaches the noncellulosic nonwoven component of the fiber material can be made of polyolefins such as polypropylene (Col 5: lines 33-36).
Heidari teaches polypropylene (PP) porous membrane separators have been the most dominant ones for commercial Li−ion batteries over the decades because of their superior properties such as cost-efficiency, good mechanical strength and pore structure, electrochemical stability, and thermal shutdown properties” (Abstract).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Oxley’s separator to use polypropylene as the nonwoven component given that Oxley teaches it is a known material suitable for the intended use, and given Heidari’s described advantages of their excellent cost-efficiency, good mechanical strength and pore structure, electrochemical stability, and thermal shutdown properties. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). In the same field of endeavor, Stich teaches polypropylene separator contains a very small amount of water due to the hydrophobic nature of its surface (p88 left col para 4), thus providing evidentiary support for polypropylene as a non-hygroscopic fiber material.
Within the combination of prior art, the non-woven component of the fiber material is coated with a cellulosic material that can have plasticizers such as poly(ethylene oxide) (Col 5: lines 20-24). As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 11, Oxley teaches the plasticizers regulate moisture (Oxley: Col 9: lines 35-44), therefore, they are materials that absorb water).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 8 September 2026
Prosecution Insights