DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims exhibit a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature is not a special technical feature in view of the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (“Yu”, US 2013/0149587 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (“Xiao”, US 2018/0254449 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 12, Yu discloses a separator for an electrochemical device ([0002]) and teaches the separator comprises a porous substrate with a porous coating layer formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate and comprising a mixture of first inorganic particles and second inorganic particles and a binder polymer ([0010]).
Yu teaches the porous coating layer may further comprise functional particles ([0011]), which may include a water scavenger, Mn scavenger including zeolite, and HF scavenger ([0027]-[0028]).
Yu teaches including a binder such as polyacrylonitrile and polyethylene oxide, inter alia ([0016]).
Yu teaches the weight ratio of a mixture of the first inorganic particles and the second inorganic particles: the binder polymer preferably ranges from 80:20 to 90:10, which falls within the claimed range.
Yu teaches zeolite, as discussed above, but does not expressly teach a type of Li-exchanged zeolite, as claimed in claim 1.
However, Xiao, which is directed to the same endeavor of a composite porous separator for an electrochemical cell (abstract), teaches particles of the lithium ion-exchanged zeolite material actively remove trace water, hydrogen ions, hydrofluoric acid, etc. without inhibiting the transport or net flow of lithium ions therethrough ([0028]).
Xiao teaches including particles of the lithium ion-exchanged zeolite in an amount range from about 10 wt.% to 30 wt.% of the slurry ([0041]) relative to 1.5 wt.% to 8 wt.% of the binder ([0013]), which overlaps the range claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the lithium ion-exchanged zeolite in the amount taught by Xiao since Yu teaches zeolite but does not provide guidance as to the amount, and both are directed to the same endeavor (flow of lithium ions through a separator in an electrochemical device/cell).
Yu is silent as to the sodium concentration in the particles.
However, Xiao teaches lithium cations may comprise greater than 95% or greater than 99% of the extra framework cations and may be substantially free of any and/or all of the following extra-framework cations: Na+ and H+ ([0050]).
Yu is also silent as to the sodium concentration of the second inorganic particles. However, there would be a reasonable expectation that only trace amounts of sodium would be present, which would be substantially similar or fall within the claimed ranges in claim 1 and 12.
As to claim 3, Yu teaches a separator for an electrochemical device, which is interposed between cathode and anode electrodes ([0048]) and also teaches an electrolyte consisting of a salt and an organic solvent capable of dissolving or dissociating the salt ([0051]).
As to claims 5 and 6, Xiao teaches the zeolite particles may have an Si:Al ratio in the range of 1:1 to 2:1 and have a framework type selected from the group consisting of ABW, AFG, inter alia ([0016]). Xiao teaches the particles may have a mean particle diameter in the range of 100 nm to 1 micron ([0051]).
As to claim 7, Yu and Xiao are silent as to the surface area and pore volume of the Li-exchanged zeolite. However, since Xiao teaches lithium ion-exchanged zeolite have the same framework type ([0016]-[0018]) as claimed by Applicant, there would be a reasonable expectation that the surface area and pore volume would also be substantially similar.
As to claims 8 and 9, Yu teaches inorganic particles including Al2O3 (alumina), TiO2, SiO2, and ZrO2, inter alia ([0033]).
As to claim 10, Yu teaches alumina ([0033]) but does not teach the specific morphology.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the alumina particles taught by Yu would likely be one of the common morphologies of alumina, such as the claimed irregular morphology.
As to claim 11, Yu teaches first inorganic particles having an average diameter of 1 to 10 microns and second inorganic particles having an average diameter of 50 to 500 nm (0.05 to 0.5 microns), which overlap or fall within the claimed range.
As to claim 13, Yu is silent as to the thickness or porosity of the separator.
Xiao teaches the substrate may have a thickness in the range of 10 to 30 microns ([0039]), which falls within the claimed range.
Although the references are silent as to the porosity, Xiao teaches the substrate may comprise a microporous polymeric material and teaches polypropylene (PP) ([0039]), which is also disclosed in Applicant’s specification. There would be a reasonable expectation that commercially available microporous polymeric materials would have a substantially similar porosity, especially when being used for the same endeavor (flow of lithium ions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746