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
The amendment filed on 22 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are currently amended. Claims 12 and 13 have been added. Claims 1-13 are pending and examined herein.
All previous rejections of the claims are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai. (US 2018/0138482 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sakurai teaches a separator for an electrochemical device (Figure 5; e.g. separator 34A; see annotated figure below) comprising a porous polymer substrate (34; Para [0078]); wherein the separator has a central portion (Figure 5; portion between bulges 34b of separator 34A) and two end portions (Figure 5; bulges 34b on separator 34A); wherein a thickness of the separator in a stacking direction (SD) of the separator (i.e. the vertical dimension of annotated Figure 5) at the two end portions in a transverse direction (TD) (TD is the horizontal dimension of annotated Figure 5) is larger than a thickness of the separator in the stacking direction of the separator at the central portion in the TD (Figure 5); wherein the transverse direction is a direction perpendicular to a machine direction (Machine direction is the direction perpendicular to the plane of Figure 5) and the stacking direction of the separator, and wherein the central portion comprises a flat surface extending in a straight line in the transverse direction from one end of the two end portions to the other end of the two end portions. (Figure 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
505
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (TD)][AltContent: textbox (Central portion)][AltContent: textbox (SD)][AltContent: textbox (End portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Although not explicitly discussed in the embodiment of Figure 5, Sakurai further teaches that in order to fully adhere the separator to the active material layer of the adjacent electrode, an adhesive layer comprising e.g. a PVDF binder and alumina particles may be used. (Para [0015]) and also teaches that such an adhesive layer can be applied to either the resin separator layer or the active material layer. (Para [0020] It is the examiner’s position that such an adhesive layer can be understood to be part of the separator, and further that in order for the product battery to function, it will necessarily be porous. (See e.g. Para. [0079])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the embodiment of Figure 5 of Sakurai to include an adhesive layer on its surface including PVDF binder and alumina particles, which are inorganic, as taught at Para [0015] and [0020] of the reference, for the purpose of fully bonding the separator to the active material layer(s). (Para [0020])
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the disclosure of Sakurai cited above in addressing claim 1, the embodiment of Sakurai’s Figure 5 further includes an electrode (31) comprising a current collector (32) and an active material present on at least one surface of the current collector. (33A) Separator 34A is present on a surface of electrode 31. (Figure 5; Para. [0077]-[0080])
Regarding claims 2 and 6, as illustrated in Figure 5, bulges 34b increase the thickness of separator 34A by between 5 % and 100 %. (Figure 5; appears to be about 50 %)
Regarding claim 3, bulges 34b comprise a region having a gradually increasing thickness along a direction away from the central portion in the TD. (Annotated figure 5 above)
Regarding claim 7, in an alternative interpretation of Sakurai, the separator can be considered to include resin-permeated portions 33Aj, and the claimed end portions can be considered to correspond to the regions in which 33Aj are provided , while the central portion can be the lower surface of 34A located between the regions 33Aj. As illustrated in Figure 5, the two end portions so defined have a shape corresponding to the shape of both ends of the active material layer (33A)
Regarding claim 8, within the alternative interpretation described above in addressing claim 7, the two end portions 33Aj comprise regions having gradually increasing thickness along directions away from the central portion in the TD, and both ends of the active material layer 33A in the TD include a region having gradually decreasing thickness along a direction away from the central portion in the TD. (Figure 5)
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sakurai teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly described above in addressing claim 5. (Para. [0077] also [0068])
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sakurai teaches the central portion has a uniform thickness in the TD extending in the straight line from one end of the two end portions to the other end of the two end portions. (Figure 5)
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ping et al (US 2023/0198098 A1; hereinafter “Ping”) in view of Sakurai. (US 2018/0138482 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ping discloses a separator for an electrochemical device comprising a porous polymer substrate (Figure 1, 100; Para. [0094]); wherein the separator has a central portion (Figure 1; 101) and two end portions (Figure 1; the respective left and right portions having bonding layer 200); wherein a thickness of the separator in a stacking direction of the separator (i.e. the vertical dimension of Figure 1) at the two end portions in a transverse direction (Transverse direction is the horizontal dimension of Figure 1) is larger than a thickness of the separator in the stacking direction of the separator at the central portion in the TD (Figure 1); wherein the transverse direction is a direction perpendicular to a machine direction (Machine direction is the direction perpendicular to the plane of Figure 1) and the stacking direction of the separator, and wherein the central portion comprises a flat surface extending in a straight line in the transverse direction from one end of the two end portions to the other end of the two end portions. (Figure 1)
Ping does not explicitly teach that the separator includes a porous coating layer on at least one surface of the porous polymer substrate, with the porous coating layer comprising a binder polymer and inorganic particles. Ping does specify that the separator is intended to be adhered to the surface of a negative electrode when assembling the lithium battery. (Abstract)
Sakurai teaches a similar separator that is adhered to the surface of a negative electrode (Figure 5), and teaches that in order to fully adhere such separators to the active material layer of the adjacent electrode, an adhesive layer comprising a binder and alumina particles may be used. (Para [0015]) and also teaches that such an adhesive layer can be applied to either the resin separator layer or the active material layer. (Para [0020] It is the examiner’s position that such an adhesive layer can be understood to be part of the separator, and further that in order for the product battery to function, it will necessarily be porous. (See e.g. Para. [0079])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base film 100 of Ping by adding an adhesive layer comprising a binder and alumina particles between the porous base layer and the active material layer, in order to fully bond the separator to the active material layer(s). (Sakurai Para [0020])
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the disclosure of modified Ping cited above in addressing claim 1, Ping further discloses an electrode comprising a current collector and an active material present on at least one surface of the current collector, with the separator being present on a surface of the electrode. (Para [0100]-[0102]; [0112]-[0113] show preparation of the electrode plates with active material layers)
Regarding claims 2 and 6, modified Ping teaches a separator and electrode assembly as described above in addressing claims 1 and 5, respectively. Ping further teaches that the separator membrane (which defines the central portion thickness) can be 18 µm thick with the bonding layer 2 µm thick. With the separator design of Figure 1, this would provide end portions that are 22 µm thick, which is 22% thicker than the central portion. (Para. [0115]
Regarding claims 4 and 9, modified Ping teaches a separator and electrode assembly as described above in addressing claims 1 and 5, respectively. Ping further teaches that the end portions defined by the presence of bonding layer 200 can be 10 mm wide while the middle blank area of the separator can be 600 mm. (Para. [0115], see also Para [0075]-[0078]) Such exemplary dimensions would provide an overall separator width of 620 mm. These dimensions correspond to the claimed length of an end portion being 1.6% of the total length of the separator in the transverse direction.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Ping teaches a separator and electrode assembly as described above in addressing claims 1 and 5, respectively. Ping further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly described above in addressing claim 5. (Para [0100]-[0102]; [0112]-[0116])
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Ping teaches a separator and electrode assembly as described above in addressing claims 1 and 5, respectively. Ping further teaches the central portion has a uniform thickness in the TD extending in the straight line from one end of the two end portions to the other end of the two end portions. (Figure 1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights