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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on Aug. 2, 2023 and Jun. 28, 2024 have been considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement filed Aug. 2, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language . It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following: The first sentence of claim 9 has grammatical errors. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 1-18 are 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. The term “about” in claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12 , 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term “about”. Claim 5 recites the limitation " the binder ". The antecedent basis is unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the binder in the ceramic layer. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the binder ". The antecedent basis is unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the binder in the functional layer. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained th r ough the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103 Claim s 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) or 102(a)(2), as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhou (US 20190319239 A1, hereafter Zhou ) . Regarding claim s 1 , 3, 6 and 9-10 , Zhou teaches (See, at least Figs. 1-2) a separator for a rechargeable lithium battery, the separator comprising: a ceramic layer (“2” in Figs.) comprising ceramic particles (e.g., “silicon oxides”, [0042]) and a binder (“a first binder”, [0042]), and a functional layer (“3” in Fig3.) on the ceramic layer and comprising inorganic particles ([0048]) and a binder (“second binder”, [0048]). Zhou teaches the binder of the ceramic layer and the binder of the functional layer each independently comprise polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene ([0058]). Zhou further teaches the inorganic particles comprise lithium lanthanum titanium oxide ([0051]), which is expected to have a working potential (vs Li/Li + ) of greater than or equal to about 1 V, as instantly disclosed and claimed. Regarding claim s 1 1 and 13-14 , Zhou teaches a negative electrode-separator assembly ( See, e.g., “the second coating layer 3 near the negative electrode”, [0046] ; [0062], [0090] -[ 0091], [0100] ) for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative electrode-separator assembly comprising: a negative electrode ([0 100 ]), a functional layer (“3” in Fig3.) on the negative electrode ([0100]) and comprising inorganic particles ([0048]) and a binder (“second binder”, [0048]) and a ceramic layer (“2” in Figs.) comprising ceramic particles (e.g., “silicon oxides”, [0042]) and a binder (“a first binder”, [0042]), and Zhou teaches the binder of the ceramic layer and the binder of the functional layer each independently comprise polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene ([0058]). Zhou further teaches the inorganic particles comprise lithium lanthanum titanium oxide ([0051]), which is expected to have a working potential (vs Li/Li + ) of greater than or equal to about 1 V, as instantly disclosed and claimed. Regarding claim 16 , Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 11, wherein, the negative electrode comprises a current collector (“Cu foil”, [0098]), and a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector ([0098]), the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (e.g., “artificial graphite”, [0098]), and the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based negative electrode active material (e.g., “artificial graphite”, [0098]). Regarding claim 17 , Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 16, wherein, the negative electrode active material further comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material (“silicon (Si)”, [0076]), and the silicon-based negative electrode active material comprises silicon ([0076]). Regarding claim 18 , Zhou tea ches a rechargeable lithium battery ([0100]) , comprising: the negative electrode-separator assembly of claim 11 ([0100]) , a positive electrode ([0100]) , and an electrolyte ([0100]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim s 2, 5 , 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou . Regarding claim 2 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the ceramic layer is in a range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm ([0042]) , and a thickness of the functional layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 20 µm ([0044]). The claimed ranges overlap the above two ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 5 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein based on 100 wt % of the ceramic layer, the ceramic particles are in an amount of 70 wt % to 99 wt % ([0043]), and therefore the binder is in an amount of 1 wt % to 30 wt %. The instantly claimed ranges overlap the above two ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 7 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein, in the functional layer, an average particle diameter, D50, of the inorganic particles is in a range of 0.001 µm to 15 µm ([0052]). The claimed range overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 8 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein based on 100 wt % of the functional layer, the inorganic particles are in an amount of 40 wt % to 99 wt % ([0053]), and therefore the binder is in an amount of 1 wt % to 60 wt %. The instantly claimed ranges overlap the above two ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 6432586 B1, hereafter Zhang ) . Regarding claim 4 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, but appears silent as to an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles. In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that an average size of 0.001 µm to 25 µm of ceramic particles is used in a ceramic composite layer (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used ceramic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.001 µm to 25 µm, as taught by Zhang, in the ceramic layer of Zhou, since the selection of a size of particles is a matter of design choice. As a result, the instantly claimed range overlap the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20090176151 A1, hereafter Kim ) . Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches the negative electrode-separ a tor assembly of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the ceramic layer is in a range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm ([0042]), and a thickness of the functional layer is in a range of 0.5 µm to 20 µm ([0044]). The claimed ranges overlap the above two ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Zhou is silent on a thickness of the negative electrode. In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses that a thickness of a ceramic coating layer (separator) is 7-20% of the thickness of a negative electrode active material layer (Abstract) to ensure safety and a high capacity of the battery ([0065]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into Zhou such that the thickness of the separator of Zhou is 7-20% of the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer in order to ensure safety and a high capacity of the battery. Thus, based on the thickness of the ceramic layer of Zhou being 0.05 µm to 10 µm (above), the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer of Zhou is calculated to be in the range of 0.01µm to about 143 µm. Kim further a thickness of the negative electrode current collector is 5-10% of the thickness of the negative active material ([0058]) , and therefore the total thickness of the negative electrode is in a range of 0.015 µm to about 157 µm. The instantly claimed range of the thickness of the negative electrode overlap the above range of 0.015 µm to about 157 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang . Regarding claim 15 , Zhou teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein, in the functional layer, an average particle diameter, D50, of the inorganic particles is in a range of 0.001 µm to 15 µm ([0052]). The claimed range overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Zhou appears silent as to an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles . In the same field of endeavor, however, Zhang discloses that an average size of 0.001 µm to 25 µm of ceramic particles is used in a ceramic composite layer (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used ceramic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.001 µm to 25 µm, as taught by Zhang, in the ceramic layer of Zhou, since the selection of a size of particles is a matter of design choice. As a result, the instantly claimed range overlap the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4809 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ZHONGQING WEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727