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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received March 30, 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are pending. Claim 3 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous drawing objections are withdrawn in light of the replacement drawings.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Speakman (US 2007/0087564). All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2009/0081535).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a battery separator (Fig. 2, #10’) comprising sequentially a microporous membrane (Fig. 2, #12’) (i.e. a first region) and a plurality of layers (Fig. 2, #16) (i.e. a main region and a second region in a first direction) wherein the microporous membrane contains an X-ray detectable element (Fig. 2, #14’) (Para. [0022]) which is an X-ray fluorescent material (i.e. one surface of the first region is provided with a fluorescent coating) having electrons capable of becoming exited by X-ray radiation thereby providing detection signals (Para. [0021]) (i.e. configured to produce a fluorescent color) to detect the position of the separator in the battery (Para. [0014]) (i.e. capable of identifying whether the separator is folded or not) and when the separator is subjected to X-ray radiation thereby facilitating the detection of the position of the X-ray sensitive separator, an x-ray examination (i.e. color sensor monitoring) of the assembled battery allows a check to determine that the separator remains in position (Para. [0027]) (i.e. based on a color sensor monitoring whether the fluorescent color in the fluorescent coating is absent or not) wherein X-ray fluorescent materials include metal oxides (Para. [0024]) (i.e. the fluorescent coating comprises a fluorescent material, the fluorescent material comprising fluorescent metal oxides).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang further teaches a method for detecting the position of a separator in a battery (Para. [0014]) (i.e. a method for identifying a folded separator, applied to the separator of claim 1) wherein a fluorescent material having electrons capable of being excited by X-ray radiation thereby providing detection signals (Para. [0021]) and when the separator is subjected to X-ray radiation thereby facilitating the detection of the position of the X-ray sensitive separator, an x-ray examination (i.e. monitoring) of the assembled battery allows a check to determine that the separator remains in position (Para. [0027]) (i.e. by a color sensor, whether a fluorescent of the separator has a fluorescent color in the process of the separator moving in a second direction and determining the separator is folded when the color sensor monitors the absence of the fluorescent color in the fluorescent region).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang further teaches the separator is sandwiched between a positive electrode (Fig. 3, #18) and a negative electrode (Fig. 3, #20) (Para. [0026]) (i.e. an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and the separator of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2009/0081535) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2007/141590A). The English machine translation of Tanaka et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach wherein in the first direction, width w1 of the first region is within a range from 0.5 mm to 15 mm, and a width w2 of the second region is within a range from 0.5 mm to 15 mm.
However, Tanaka et al. teaches a method of identifying positional relationship between the separator and electrode by image processing (Para. [0012]) by providing end portions in the width direction of the region of the separator having different color tones (Para. [0019], [0024]) (i.e. a first region and a second region) wherein the colored region has a width of 3 mm (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein in the first direction a width of the first region is within a range from 0.5 mm to 15 mm and a width of the second region is within a range of from 0.5 mm to 15 mm).
The combination of the end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang et al. would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang et al. – Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang et al. – Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the electrode assembly in claim 9 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach where in the first direction, the width of the first region is not less than a first width, a first width is a distance between an upper edge of the negative electrode plate and an upper edge of the positive electrode plate.
However, Tanaka et al. teaches a method of identifying positional relationship between the separator and electrode by image processing (Para. [0012]) by providing end portions in the width direction of the region of the separator having different color tones (Para. [0019], [0024]) (i.e. a first region) wherein the colored region has a width of 3 mm (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein in the first direction a width of the first region is 3 mm) and the negative electrode plate has a breadth 124 mm portion (Para. [0029]) and a positive electrode plate having a breadth 120 mm portion (Para. [0028]) (i.e. a distance between an upper edge of the negative electrode plate and an upper edge of the positive electrode is 2 mm, see also Fig. 2) and thus, the width W1 of the first region is not less than a first width W3.
The combination of the distances between upper edges of the negative and positive electrode plates and the end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang et al. would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang– Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]) and providing a secondary battery (see Tanaka et al. – Para. [0052] and Zhang – Para. [0014]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the distances between edges of the negative and positive electrode plates and the end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang – Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]) and providing a secondary battery (see Tanaka et al. – Para. [0052] and Zhang – Para. [0014]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the electrode assembly in claim 9 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach where in the first direction, the width of the second region is not less than a second width, a second width is a distance between an lower edge of the negative electrode plate and an lower edge of the positive electrode plate.
However, Tanaka et al. teaches a method of identifying positional relationship between the separator and electrode by image processing (Para. [0012]) by providing end portions in the width direction of the region of the separator having different color tones (Para. [0019], [0024]) (i.e. a second region) wherein the colored region has a width of 3 mm (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein in the first direction a width of the second region is 3 mm) and the negative electrode plate has a breadth 124 mm portion (Para. [0029]) and a positive electrode plate having a breadth 120 mm portion (Para. [0028]) (i.e. a distance between a lower edge of the negative electrode plate and a lower edge of the positive electrode is 2 mm, see also Fig. 2) and thus, the width W2 of the second region is not less than a second width W4.
The combination of the distances between lower edges of the negative and positive electrode plates and the end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang et al. would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang– Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]) and providing a secondary battery (see Tanaka et al. – Para. [0052] and Zhang – Para. [0014]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the distances between edges of the negative and positive electrode plates and end portions of the separator having different color tones of a 3 mm (i.e. first and second region of 3 mm width) as taught by Tanaka et al., with the separator of Zhang, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing regions of the separators colored with metal oxides in order to identify the position of the separator (see Zhang – Para. [0021], [0027] and Tanaka et al. – Para. [0012], [0019]) and providing a secondary battery (see Tanaka et al. – Para. [0052] and Zhang – Para. [0014]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang as modified by Tanaka et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrode assembly in claim 11 as explained above.
Zhang further teaches the separator in a secondary lithium battery (Para. [0014]) (i.e. a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly of claim 11).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2009/0081535) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0311091).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach the fluorescent coating further comprises a binder, the binder comprising at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl alcohol or polyacrylonitrile.
However, Liu et al. teaches a separator coating containing inorganic particles such as aluminum oxide (Para. [0063]) (i.e. a fluorescent coating) wherein the coating comprises polymer binder (Para. [0064]) comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (Para. [0025]) (i.e. further comprises a binder, the binder comprising at least polyvinylidene fluoride).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of polyvinylidene fluoride binder as taught by Liu et al., as such a material would provide improved adhesive property for a separator coating (Para. [0010]).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang as modified by Liu et al. teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 4 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach the fluorescent coating further comprises acrylic resin, and based on the total mass of the fluorescent coating, the fluorescent material has a percentage mass content of 40% to 80%, the binder has a percentage mass content of 1% to 10%, and the acrylic resin has a percentage mass content of 10% to 50%.
However, Liu et al. teaches the ratio of polymer solids to inorganic material is from 0.5-25 parts by weight of the polymer binder solids to 75 to 99.5 parts by weight of the inorganic material (Para. [0064]) wherein the inorganic material is aluminum oxide (Para. [0063]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of the fluorescent material has percentage mass content of 40% to 80%) and the binder being fluoropolymer-acrylic composition comprising 5 to 50 wt% acrylic monomer (Para [0074]) (i.e. 0.025 to 12 wt%, overlapping with the claimed acrylic resin percentage mass content of 10% to 50%) and the fluoropolymer which is polyvinylidene fluoride (Para. [0025]) 2 to 20 wt% of the polymer binder (Para. [0038) (i.e. the binder, which is PVDF, is 0.01 to 5 wt%, overlapping with the claimed binder range of 1 to 10%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the ratios and materials as taught by Liu et al. as explained above, as the ratios and materials would provide aid in adhesion of the polymer binder (Para. [0038]) providing improved adhesive property for a separator coating (Para. [0010]) without excess polymer which takes up volume and adds weight (Para. [0064]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2009/0081535) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0216092).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach an inorganic coating is disposed between the fluorescent coating and the first region and/or an inorganic coating is disposed between the fluorescent coating and the second region.
However, Kim et al. teaches an inorganic material layer included in a coating layer of a separator (Para. [0060]) wherein the coating layer is located on the surface of a separator substrate (Para. [0013]) and a thermochromic polymer is on the surface of the coating layer (Para. [0017]) (i.e. an inorganic coating disposed between a coating and a first region) wherein the thermochromic polymer layer allows for detection of position of the separator (Para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of an inorganic coating as taught by Kim et al. between the first region and the fluorescent coating of Zhang et al., as such an inorganic coating increases mechanical strength of the separator (Para. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 6 as explained above.
Zhang does not teach an inorganic coating.
However, Kim et al. teaches an inorganic material layer included in a coating layer of a separator (Para. [0060]) (i.e. wherein the inorganic coating comprises inorganic particles) and the inorganic particles comprise aluminum oxyhydroxide (Para. [0068]) (i.e. boehmite) and alumina (Para. [0073]) (i.e. the inorganic particles comprising at least one of aluminum oxide or boehmite).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of an inorganic coating with alumina or aluminum oxyhydroxide as taught by Kim et al. between the first region and the fluorescent coating of Zhang et al., as such an inorganic coating increases mechanical strength of the separator (Para. [0060]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2009/0081535) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2007/141590A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nishimoto (US 2013/0054061).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang as modified by Tanaka et al. teaches all of the elements of the secondary battery in claim 12 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach a battery module comprising the secondary battery.
However, Nishimoto teaches a battery pack having an assembled battery (Para [0240]) comprising a plurality of secondary battery (i.e. a battery module comprising a secondary battery).
The combination of the battery module comprising the secondary battery as taught by Nishimoto, with the secondary battery as taught by modified Zhang would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery being used to supply electric power (Para. [0253]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the assembled battery (i.e. battery module) comprising the secondary battery as taught by Nishimoto, with the battery as taught by modified Zhang by assembling an assembled battery with six secondary batteries as the combination would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery and the use of secondary batteries for power (Para. [0253]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nishimoto teaches all of the elements of the battery module in claim 13 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach a battery pack comprising the battery module.
However, Nishimoto teaches a battery pack having an assembled battery (Para [0240]) comprising a plurality of secondary battery (i.e. a battery module comprising a secondary battery) and a battery pack using the same (Para. [00253]) (i.e. a battery pack comprising the battery module).
The combination of the battery pack comprising the battery module as taught by Nishimoto, with the secondary battery as taught by modified Zhang would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery being used to supply electric power (Para. [0253]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the battery pack comprising the assembled battery (i.e. battery module) comprising the secondary battery as taught by Nishimoto, with the battery as taught by modified Zhang by assembling an assembled battery with six secondary batteries as the combination would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery and the use of secondary batteries for power (Para. [0253]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nishimoto teaches all of the elements of the battery pack in claim 14 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach an electrical apparatus comprising the battery pack.
However, Nishimoto teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte battery and battery pack mounted on an electronic device (Para. [0253]) (i.e. an electrical apparatus comprising a battery pack)
The combination of the electronic device comprising the battery pack comprising the battery module as taught by Nishimoto, with the secondary battery as taught by modified Zhang would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery being used to supply electric power (Para. [0253]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the electronic device comprising the battery pack comprising the assembled battery (i.e. battery module) comprising the secondary battery as taught by Nishimoto, with the battery as taught by modified Zhang by assembling an assembled battery with six secondary batteries as the combination would yield the predictable result of a secondary battery and the use of secondary batteries for power (Para. [0253]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2009/0081535) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Speakman (US 2007/0087564).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the separator in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang teaches the X-ray fluorescent materials listed are not limiting (Para. [0021]).
Zhang does not teach wherein the fluorescent material comprises at least one of fluorescent sulfides or fluorescent lanthanide chelates.
However, Speakman teaches a separator (Para. [0464]) and further teaches a fluorescent material may be Y--2O2S:Eu (Para. [0478]) (i.e. a fluorescent sulfide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Y--2O2S:Eu as taught by Speakman (i.e. a fluorescent sulfide), for its use in as a fluorescent material providing fluorescence, with the fluorescent material providing fluorescence as taught by Zhang, as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zhang fails to disclose a fluorescent coating configured to produce a fluorescent color as X-ray fluorescent material emits characteristic secondary X-rays rather than visible fluorescent light and thus, X-ray fluorescent material is not configured to produce a fluorescent color.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. The emitted “secondary” X-rays produced by the X-ray fluorescent materials are fluorescent and thus, read on a fluorescent material producing a fluorescent color. The X-ray fluorescent material comprising metal oxides (Para. [0021]) also reads on a fluorescent metal oxide. The argument is not persuasive and the rejection to the independent claim is maintained.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Tanaka, Liu, Kim and Nishimoto) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim. Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights