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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/25, 11/25/24, 7/21/23 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 7/21/23 . These drawings are acceptable . 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, 7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (“KR’354”) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (“KR’361”). As to Claim 1: KR’354 discloses: a separator comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material. Specifically, KR’354 teaches that the separator may be a polymer substrate such as a porous polymer film, and that the polymer substrate may be polyethylene, polypropylene, and other polyolefin-based materials (p. 4, lines 9–24); forming a porous coating layer including inorganic particles on one or both sides of the separator (p. 4, lines 25–34); the porous coating layer includes inorganic particles and a binder polymer (p. 5, lines 4–15; p. 5, lines 23–36); a first porous coating layer on a first surface of the porous substrate and a second porous coating layer on a second surface of the porous substrate opposite the first surface. KR’354 also discloses that the separator has a thickness gradient, such that one end of the separator is thicker than the other end (p. 4, lines 1–8; p. 4, lines 15–21); the porous coating layer may have a thickness gradient to compensate for the thickness step of the separator, such that the thickness of the composite separator (substrate plus coating) becomes constant (p. 4, lines 34–40; p. 5, lines 1–8); the porous coating layer may be thinly formed on a thick portion of the polymer substrate and thickly formed on a thin portion of the polymer substrate so that the overall thickness of the composite separator is equalized (p. 4, lines 34–40). Thus, KR’354 teaches that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator is constant, while the coating thickness increases where the substrate thickness decreases. However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward a central portion in the longitudinal direction of the separator, nor does KR’354 explicitly describe the separator in terms of opposite ends and a central portion having a symmetric end-to-center thickness profile. KR’361 discloses a separator substrate having a coating layer in which both end portions are cut so that the thickness of the coating layer at both end portions is relatively smaller than the thickness of the coating layer at the center portion (p. 1, lines 13–20; p. 2, lines 25–33). KR’361 further teaches that the end portions have a tapered structure in which the thickness of the coating layer decreases from the center toward the end (p. 3, lines 20–27; p. 5, lines 5–12). Thus, KR’361 expressly describes a separator having opposite end portions and a central portion, and teaches a thickness relationship defined relative to the central portion and both ends. KR’361 also discloses that the porous separator substrate may be made of a polyolefin-based polymer resin and that the coating agent contains inorganic particles and a binder polymer (p. 5, lines 14–23; p. 5, lines 24–36). KR’354 and KR’361 are analogous art because both references are directed to separators for electrochemical devices, particularly lithium secondary batteries, and both address thickness control and coating structures of porous polymer separator substrates to improve performance and safety characteristics. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354 in view of KR’361 so as to define the thickness gradient of the substrate relative to a central portion and opposite ends of the separator, as taught by KR’361, while maintaining the inverse coating thickness summarsummcompensation taught by KR’354 to achieve a constant total thickness (Ts + Tc). Applying the center-versus-end structural framework of KR’361 to the thickness-compensated separator of KR’354 would have been a predictable variation within the same field of battery separator technology to provide a separator in which the substrate thickness decreases from both opposite ends toward a central portion and the coating thickness correspondingly increases toward the central portion, while maintaining a constant overall thickness. As to Claim 7: KR’354 discloses that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion while the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) remains constant (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–20). KR’354 also discloses forming an electrode assembly by stacking or winding electrode sheets with the separator interposed therebetween (p. 10, lines 5–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the separator is folded in a zigzag manner and that the unit electrodes are located at portions where the separator is overlapped, as specifically recited in claim 7. Rather, KR’354 generally discloses stacked or wound configurations without describing a zigzag folding structure in which overlapping separator portions define electrode placement regions. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which a separator sheet is folded in a zigzag (Z-folded) manner (p. 4, lines 10–20). KR’361 further discloses that positive and negative unit electrodes are disposed between folded portions of the separator, such that the separator overlaps at folding regions and the unit electrodes are positioned at these overlapped portions (p. 6, lines 1–15). Thus, KR’361 expressly teaches a configuration in which the separator is folded in a zigzag manner and the unit electrodes are located at portions where the separator is overlapped. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode assembly of KR’354 to employ the zigzag folding configuration of the separator as taught by KR’361, thereby arranging the unit electrodes at overlapped folded portions of the separator, in order to achieve known advantages such as improved stacking uniformity and manufacturing efficiency as taught by KR’361. The resulting structure would have yielded the electrode assembly as recited in claim 7. As to Claim 14: KR’354 discloses an electrochemical device in the form of a lithium secondary battery including an electrode assembly (p. 3, lines 10–20). KR’354 discloses that the electrode assembly includes unit electrodes and a separator interposed therebetween (p. 5, lines 5–15; p. 10, lines 5–20). KR’354 further discloses that the separator comprises a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 also discloses that the electrode assembly is accommodated within a battery case (p. 3, lines 10–20), thereby teaching that the electrode assembly is received in a battery casing. As to Claim 15: KR’354 discloses an electrochemical device comprising an electrode assembly and a battery casing (p. 3, lines 10–20). KR’354 discloses that the electrode assembly includes unit electrodes and a separator interposed therebetween (p. 5, lines 5–15; p. 10, lines 5–20). KR’354 further discloses that the separator comprises a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 expressly identifies the electrochemical device as a lithium secondary battery (p. 3, lines 10–20). Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (“KR’354”) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (“KR’361”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2015/065118 A1 (“WO’118”). As to Claim 2: KR’354 discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate, the porous coating layers containing inorganic particles (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate is constant from the longitudinal center (C) to a first predetermined position (A) toward a first end (E) and to a second predetermined position (A′) toward a second end (E′), and that only in at least part of first and second regions (AE, A′E′) does Ts decrease gradually toward the central portion while Tc correspondingly increases, as specifically recited in claim 2. Rather, KR’354 generally teaches a gradual thickness change from both ends toward the central portion without explicitly defining a central constant-thickness region bounded by predetermined positions A and A′. KR’361 discloses a separator used in an electrode assembly in which structural regions of the separator are functionally differentiated along a longitudinal direction, particularly in connection with zigzag folding portions and regions disposed at topmost and bottommost ends of a stacked assembly (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 teaches that specific regions of the separator correspond to defined structural portions of the electrode assembly, thereby recognizing and defining longitudinally distinct regions of the separator sheet. WO’118 discloses a separator sheet including a porous polymer substrate and porous coating layers on opposite surfaces, wherein the porous coating layers may have different thicknesses, compositions, or porosities depending on position and functional requirements (p. 7, lines 10–25; p. 8, lines 1–20). WO’118 further teaches controlling coating thickness ratios (e.g., 1:9 to 9:1) and porosity distributions in defined regions of the separator to optimize performance and safety (p. 8–9). This disclosure demonstrates that separator properties, including coating thickness and corresponding substrate characteristics, may be regionally controlled along the longitudinal direction for functional optimization. KR’361 and WO’118 are analogous arts to KR’354 because each relates to lithium secondary battery separators and electrode assemblies, and each addresses structural configuration of separator sheets along a longitudinal direction to improve mechanical stability, safety, and electrochemical performance. All references are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries and concern structural and thickness relationships within separator sheets. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354, which already teaches a longitudinal thickness gradient maintaining constant total thickness, in view of KR’361’s recognition of distinct longitudinal regions corresponding to functional portions of an electrode assembly and WO’118’s teaching of regionally controlled coating thickness and porosity distributions, to provide a central region in which the porous substrate thickness (Ts) remains constant from the longitudinal center (C) to predetermined positions (A, A′), and to confine the gradual decrease of Ts and corresponding increase of Tc to outer regions (AE, A′E′) toward the opposite ends. Such modification would have been a predictable design variation to optimize mechanical support and electrochemical performance in central versus end regions of the separator while maintaining the constant overall thickness (Ts + Tc) taught by KR’354. The resulting structure would have yielded the separator as recited in claim 2. As to Claim 6: KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that a ratio (Ts/Tc) of the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate to the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers is 1–5 at a first predetermined position (A), as specifically recited in claim 6. While KR’354 teaches controlling substrate thickness and coating thickness along the longitudinal direction, it does not explicitly define a numerical ratio of Ts/Tc at a particular longitudinal position. KR’361 discloses a separator used in an electrode assembly in which structural regions of the separator are functionally differentiated along the longitudinal direction, particularly in connection with zigzag folding portions and regions disposed at topmost and bottommost ends of a stacked assembly (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 teaches that distinct longitudinal regions correspond to specific structural portions of the electrode assembly, thereby recognizing defined positions along the longitudinal direction at which separator properties may be controlled. WO’118 discloses a separator sheet including a porous polymer substrate and porous coating layers on opposite surfaces, wherein coating thickness and base film thickness are controlled and selected according to performance requirements (p. 7, lines 10–25; p. 8, lines 1–20). WO’118 further discloses specific coating layer thickness values and describes adjusting coating thickness relative to the base film thickness to optimize performance and safety characteristics (p. 8, lines 10–25; p. 9, lines 1–15). Because WO’118 expressly discloses selectable numerical thickness values for both the porous substrate and the coating layers, the ratio between substrate thickness (Ts) and coating thickness (Tc) is an adjustable and controlled parameter. The disclosed thickness ranges overlap combinations that inherently yield Ts/Tc ratios within the claimed range of 1–5, depending on selected substrate and coating thickness values. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354, which already teaches controlling substrate thickness (Ts) and coating thickness (Tc) along the longitudinal direction while maintaining constant total thickness, in view of KR’361’s recognition of defined longitudinal regions and WO’118’s explicit teaching of selecting substrate and coating thickness values, to select a ratio (Ts/Tc) within the range of 1–5 at a predetermined longitudinal position (A). Selecting a specific ratio within a range defined by controllable thickness parameters would have constituted routine optimization of thickness design variables to balance mechanical support and coating functionality at selected longitudinal regions. The resulting structure would have yielded the separator as recited in claim 6. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (KR’354) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (“KR’361”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2985813 A1 (“EP’813”). As to Claim 3: KR’354 discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate, the porous coating layers containing inorganic particles (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the first and second porous coating layers are formed symmetrically to each other based on the central portion of the separator in the longitudinal direction, nor does KR’354 expressly disclose that a thickness of the first porous coating layer and a thickness of the second porous coating layer are the same or have a difference in thickness of 10% or less at the same position orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, as specifically recited in claim 3. Rather, KR’354 generally teaches forming coating layers on opposite surfaces but does not explicitly define longitudinal symmetry or quantify a maximum allowable thickness deviation between the two coating layers. KR’361 discloses a separator used in an electrode assembly in which coating layers are formed on both surfaces of a porous substrate and structural symmetry is maintained to improve mechanical balance and dimensional stability (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 teaches that maintaining balanced coating structures on opposite surfaces enhances stability of the electrode assembly during stacking or folding. EP’813 discloses a separator including a porous base and a first coating layer disposed on a surface of the porous base (p. 3, lines 16–25). EP’813 further discloses that a second coating layer may be disposed on a surface of the porous base opposite to the first coating layer (p. 7, lines 14–23). EP’813 teaches forming the coating layers using identical coating methods such as gravure coating to achieve controlled and uniform thickness (p. 9, lines 1–10; p. 9, lines 20–30). In Example 1, EP’813 discloses forming a first coating layer having a thickness of about 1.0 μm after drying and forming a second coating layer also having a thickness of about 1.0 μm after drying (p. 14, lines 10–20). This disclosure demonstrates that the first and second coating layers can be formed with substantially identical thicknesses at corresponding positions, inherently resulting in a thickness difference of 0%, which falls within the “10% or less” limitation recited in claim 3. Because the coatings are applied uniformly using the same process conditions across the separator sheet, the resulting structure is symmetrical about the central portion in the longitudinal direction. KR’361 and EP’813 are analogous arts to KR’354 because each relates to lithium secondary battery separators and addresses structural configuration and thickness control of coating layers on opposite surfaces to improve mechanical stability, dimensional balance, and electrochemical performance. All references are directed to the same field of lithium secondary batteries and concern structural relationships between porous substrates and coating layers. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354, which already teaches first and second porous coating layers on opposite surfaces with controlled longitudinal thickness relationships, in view of KR’361’s teaching of structural symmetry for mechanical stability and EP’813’s teaching of forming first and second coating layers with substantially identical thicknesses using identical coating processes, to provide first and second porous coating layers that are formed symmetrically based on the central portion of the separator and that have the same thickness or a thickness difference of 10% or less at corresponding positions. Such modification would have been a predictable design choice to enhance dimensional stability, reduce warping, and maintain uniform electrochemical performance while preserving the constant total thickness (Ts + Tc) taught by KR’354. The resulting structure would have yielded the separator as recited in claim 3. As to Claim 5: KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that a ratio (Ts/Tc) of the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate to the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers is 0.5–5 over the whole separator, as specifically recited in claim 5. While KR’354 teaches controlling substrate and coating thicknesses to maintain constant overall thickness, it does not explicitly define the numerical ratio between Ts and Tc across the separator. KR’361 discloses a separator used in an electrode assembly and recognizes the importance of controlling structural thickness distribution to ensure mechanical stability and manufacturability (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 reinforces that separator thickness relationships between substrate and coating layers are controlled design parameters in lithium secondary battery assemblies. EP’813 discloses a separator including a porous base (polymer substrate) and coating layers formed on one or both surfaces thereof (p. 3, lines 16–25; p. 7, lines 14–23). EP’813 further discloses forming coating layers with controlled thicknesses, including examples where the coating layer thickness after drying is about 1.0 μm (p. 14, lines 10–20), and describes controlling coating thickness to adjust overall separator thickness and performance (p. 9, lines 1–10; p. 9, lines 20–30). Because EP’813 provides explicit numerical thickness values for both the porous base and coating layers, it inherently teaches that the ratio between base thickness and coating thickness can be selected and controlled. The disclosed thickness values fall within ranges that would produce Ts/Tc ratios within 0.5–5, depending on selected base and coating thicknesses, thereby overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354, which already teaches controlling substrate thickness (Ts) and coating thickness (Tc) to maintain constant total thickness, in view of KR’361’s recognition that thickness relationships are critical design parameters in electrode assemblies and EP’813’s explicit teaching of controlled base and coating thickness values, to select a ratio (Ts/Tc) within the range of 0.5–5 over the whole separator. Selecting a specific ratio within a known adjustable thickness relationship would have been a routine optimization of a result-effective variable to balance mechanical strength, coating adhesion, and electrochemical performance. The resulting structure would have yielded the separator as recited in claim 5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (“KR’354”) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (“KR’361”) and further in view of US 10,971,783 B2 (“US’783”). As to Claim 4: KR’354 discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate, the porous coating layers containing inorganic particles (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the separator is symmetrical based on the longitudinal center (C) in the longitudinal direction, nor does KR’354 expressly disclose that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate in the first region (AE) and the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate in the second region (A′E′), at positions spaced apart from the longitudinal center (C) by the same interval, are the same or have a difference in thickness of 10% or less, as specifically recited in claim 4. Rather, KR’354 generally teaches a thickness gradient but does not explicitly define mirror symmetry about the longitudinal center with matched thickness values at equal distances from the center. KR’361 discloses a separator used in an electrode assembly in which structural regions of the separator correspond to defined stacking portions and are arranged symmetrically in the electrode assembly (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 recognizes that balanced structural configuration along the longitudinal direction improves dimensional stability and mechanical reliability in stacked or folded electrode assemblies. US’783 discloses an electrode assembly including a separator having a gradient in thickness (col. 3, lines 11–18). US’783 further discloses that the vertical section of the separator may have an isosceles trapezoidal shape (col. 3, lines 24–28), which inherently defines a geometry symmetrical about a centerline. An isosceles trapezoid has equal side lengths and symmetric thickness variation relative to its central axis, thereby teaching a separator structure that is symmetrical based on a central axis. US’783 also teaches that thickness relationships are controlled in defined proportions (e.g., 1.1–2.0 times larger at one side; col. 3, lines 15–18), demonstrating that controlled thickness ratios and defined tolerance relationships between different regions of the separator were known in the art. KR’361 and US’783 are analogous arts to KR’354 because each relates to lithium secondary battery electrode assemblies and separators, and each addresses structural configuration of separator thickness along a longitudinal direction to improve thermal stability, dimensional balance, and safety. All references are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries and concern geometric and thickness relationships of separators within electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator of KR’354, which already teaches a longitudinal thickness gradient maintaining constant overall thickness, in view of KR’361’s recognition of balanced structural regions in electrode assemblies and US’783’s teaching of a separator having a symmetrical isosceles trapezoidal cross-section and controlled thickness relationships, to provide a separator symmetrical about the longitudinal center (C), such that thickness values at positions spaced equally from the center are substantially identical or within a controlled tolerance (e.g., 10% or less). Such modification would have been a predictable design variation to enhance mechanical balance, reduce warpage, and improve dimensional stability while maintaining the constant total thickness (Ts + Tc) taught by KR’354. The resulting structure would have yielded the separator as recited in claim 4. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (hereinafter “KR’354”) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (hereinafter “KR’361”), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of DE 102016204372 A1 (hereinafter “DE’372”) and US 10,833,349 B2 (hereinafter “US’349”). As to Claim 8: KR’354 discloses an electrode assembly including unit electrodes and a separator interposed therebetween (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 5, lines 5–15). KR’354 discloses that the separator comprises a porous substrate made of a polymer material (p. 6, lines 1–10) and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10), and that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) remains constant over the entire longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). Thus, KR’354 discloses the separator structure including: (i) opposite ends and a central portion; (ii) Ts decreasing gradually toward the central portion; (iii) Tc increasing toward the central portion; and (iv) constant total thickness (Ts + Tc). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate is constant from the longitudinal center (C) to a first predetermined position (A) toward a first end (E) and to a second predetermined position (A′) toward a second end (E′), nor that a first region (AE) and a second region (A′E′) are totally or at least partially disposed at the topmost end and the bottommost end based on the stacking direction of the electrode assembly, as specifically recited in claim 8. Rather, KR’354 generally teaches a gradual thickness variation without defining a central constant-thickness region bounded by predetermined positions or correlating specific longitudinal regions with stacking-direction end positions. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which a separator sheet is folded in a zigzag manner and stacked with unit electrodes (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 further teaches that defined separator regions correspond to topmost and bottommost ends in the stacking direction of the electrode assembly (p. 6, lines 10–20), thereby recognizing positional differentiation of separator regions along the stacking direction. DE’372 discloses an energy storage device including an electrode assembly comprising rectangular positive and negative electrodes stacked alternately with a strip-like stretched separator disposed therebetween (p. 2, lines 10–25; p. 4, lines 1–20). DE’372 further teaches that electrode regions are arranged in the stacking direction and that the stretched separator extends between electrode regions and may be arranged in zigzag or spiral form (p. 5, lines 5–25; p. 13, lines 5–20). DE’372 expressly discloses that separator base material layers are arranged to face specific electrodes at end portions in the stacking direction (p. 9, lines 10–25). US’349 discloses a lithium secondary battery including a zigzag-folded separator stacked with electrodes, wherein structural differentiation between central and end regions of the separator corresponds to stacking-direction end portions of the electrode assembly (US’349, col. 4, lines 20–45; col. 7, lines 10–30). KR’361, DE’372, and US’349 are analogous arts to KR’354 because all references relate to lithium secondary battery electrode assemblies including separators interposed between positive and negative electrodes. Each addresses structural configuration of separators relative to stacked electrode regions to improve mechanical stability, safety, and battery performance. The references are directed to the same field of endeavor and concern the structural arrangement of separators within electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the separator structure of KR’354, which already teaches a longitudinal thickness gradient maintaining constant total thickness (Ts + Tc), in view of KR’361’s teaching that separator regions correspond to topmost and bottommost ends of a stacked electrode assembly, and further in view of DE’372 and US’349’s teachings of zigzag or spiral stretched separators extending between electrode regions arranged in a stacking direction, to provide a configuration in which the thickness (Ts) is constant from the longitudinal center (C) to predetermined positions (A, A′), and first and second regions (AE, A′E′) are disposed at least partially at the topmost and bottommost ends in the stacking direction while Ts decreases gradually toward the central portion and Tc correspondingly increases. Such modification would have been a predictable design variation to optimize mechanical support and electrochemical performance at stacking-direction end regions while maintaining the constant overall thickness (Ts + Tc) taught by KR’354. The resulting structure would have yielded the electrode assembly as recited in claim 8. As to Claim 9: KR’354 discloses an electrode assembly including unit electrodes and a separator interposed therebetween (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 5, lines 5–15). KR’354 discloses that the separator comprises a porous substrate made of a polymer material (p. 6, lines 1–10) and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10), and that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) remains constant (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). Thus, KR’354 discloses the limitation that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases toward the central portion of the separator. However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that a defined region (AA′) from a first predetermined position (A) to a second predetermined position (A′) is not disposed at the topmost end and the bottommost end based on the stacking direction of the electrode assembly. Rather, KR’354 teaches longitudinal thickness variation of the separator but does not explicitly correlate specific longitudinal regions with topmost and bottommost stacking-direction positions of the electrode assembly. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which separator regions are structurally associated with stacking-direction positions, including topmost and bottommost ends of the electrode assembly (p. 6, lines 10–20). KR’361 further discloses that the separator is folded in a zigzag manner and stacked with unit electrodes (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15), thereby defining distinct stacking-direction end portions and intermediate regions. DE’372 discloses an energy storage device including an electrode assembly in which multiple electrode regions are arranged in a stacking direction and a stretched separator extends between electrode regions (p. 5, lines 5–25). DE’372 further teaches that separator base material layers are arranged to face specific electrodes located at end portions in the stacking direction (p. 9, lines 10–25), thereby structurally differentiating stacking-direction end regions from interior regions of the electrode assembly. US’349 discloses a lithium secondary battery including a zigzag-folded separator stacked with electrodes, wherein structural differentiation exists between central portions of the separator and stacking-direction end portions of the electrode assembly (US’349, col. 4, lines 20–45; col. 7, lines 10–30). US’349 thus reinforces the recognition that intermediate separator regions are distinct from topmost and bottommost stacking-direction ends. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode assembly of KR’354, which already teaches a separator having longitudinal thickness variation toward a central portion, in view of KR’361’s teaching of defining topmost and bottommost stacking-direction end regions and DE’372 and US’349’s teachings of structurally differentiating separator regions relative to stacking-direction positions, to recognize and configure a central region (AA′) between predetermined positions (A, A′) that is not disposed at the topmost and bottommost ends of the electrode assembly while maintaining the disclosed thickness gradient toward the central portion. Such modification would have been a predictable design variation to optimize mechanical and electrochemical performance across central versus end regions of the stacked electrode assembly. The resulting structure would have yielded the electrode assembly as recited in claim 9. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102069354 B1 (“KR’354”) in view of KR 102143361 B1 (“KR’361”), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2019/0355951 A1 (“US’951”). As to Claim 10: KR’354 discloses an electrode assembly including unit electrodes and a separator interposed therebetween (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 5, lines 5–15). KR’354 discloses that the separator comprises a porous substrate made of a polymer material (p. 6, lines 1–10) and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 7, lines 3–15). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that adhesion between a unit electrode and the separator is controlled after being fixed through a hot-pressing process, nor that adhesion at a position other than the topmost and bottommost ends is at least 20% of the adhesion at the topmost end in the stacking direction. KR’354 is directed to separator thickness variation and structural configuration and does not disclose hot pressing fixation or quantitative adhesion relationships between different stacking-direction regions. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which a separator sheet is folded in a zigzag manner and unit electrodes are disposed between folded portions of the separator (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 further discloses that the electrode assembly has topmost and bottommost ends in the stacking direction (p. 6, lines 10–20), thereby recognizing positional differentiation within the stacking direction of the electrode assembly. US’951 discloses an electrode-separator assembly in which an electrode and separator are partially bonded through heating and/or compression, i.e., a hot-pressing process (US’951, [0015]–[0020]; [0047]). US’951 further discloses forming a bonding gradient section in which bonding force is gradually decreased from a central portion toward an outer region ( [0035]–[0040]). US’951 teaches that bonding force between the electrode and separator may vary by region and may be controlled to be a predetermined proportion relative to another region ( [0035]–[0040]; [0047]). Thus, US’951 teaches hot pressing fixation and controlled positional adhesion differences between regions of the electrode-separator interface. KR’361 and US’951 are analogous arts to KR’354 because all references relate to lithium secondary battery electrode assemblies including separators interposed between positive and negative electrodes. Each reference addresses structural or bonding configuration of separators relative to electrodes in a stacked assembly to improve mechanical stability, safety, and battery performance. The references are directed to the same field of endeavor and concern structural and interfacial characteristics within electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode assembly of KR’354, which already teaches a stacked electrode assembly with a separator interposed between unit electrodes, in view of KR’361’s teaching of defined stacking-direction topmost and bottommost ends, and further in view of US’951’s teaching of hot pressing fixation and region-dependent bonding force control, to apply a hot pressing process to fix the unit electrodes and separator and to control adhesion such that adhesion at an interior position (other than the topmost and bottommost ends) is at least a predetermined fraction, including at least 20%, of the adhesion at the topmost end in the stacking direction. Such modification would have been a predictable design variation to ensure sufficient bonding strength across interior regions while maintaining stronger bonding at end regions for structural integrity, as taught by US’951. The resulting structure would have yielded the electrode assembly as recited in claim 10. As to Claim 12: KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion, while the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) remains constant (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–20). KR’354 also discloses assembling the electrode body by stacking or winding the unit electrodes with the separator interposed therebetween (p. 10, lines 5–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the separator is fixed through a hot-pressing process, nor does KR’354 expressly disclose that, after such hot pressing, the central portion of the separator has a lower air permeability as compared to the air permeability of the opposite ends of the separator. While KR’354 discloses structural thickness variations along the longitudinal direction, it does not expressly describe permeability differences resulting from a hot-pressing process. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which a separator sheet is folded in a zigzag manner and unit electrodes are disposed between overlapped portions of the separator (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 further distinguishes between regions corresponding to topmost and bottommost ends in the stacking direction and interior regions of the electrode assembly (p. 6, lines 10–20), thereby recognizing positional differentiation along the separator based on stacking direction. US’951 discloses fixing electrodes and a separator together by heating and/or compression during a lamination or hot-pressing process (US’951, [0040]–[0050]). US’951 teaches that during the lamination process, the thickness of the separator decreases and the porosity of the coating layer and fabric constituting the separator is reduced due to compression ([0016]–[0021]). US’951 further discloses that bonding force and compression may vary depending on position, and that a bonding central portion may have relatively higher bonding force than outer portions ([0054]–[0056]). Reduction in porosity inherently results in reduced air permeability of a porous separator material. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode assembly of KR’354, as configured in view of KR’361, to further include fixing the separator and unit electrodes through a hot-pressing process as taught by US’951, thereby causing compression-induced reduction of separator porosity in regions subjected to greater bonding force. Because US’951 teaches that hot pressing reduces separator porosity and that bonding/compression may be greater in a central bonding portion than in outer portions, it would have been obvious that the central portion of the separator, after hot pressing, would exhibit lower air permeability relative to opposite end regions that are subjected to less compression. Such modification represents the predictable use of known hot pressing techniques to achieve known effects on porosity and permeability in separator materials, and the resulting electrode assembly would possess the limitation recited in claim 12. As to Claim 13: KR’354 discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material and first and second porous coating layers containing inorganic particles formed on opposite surfaces of the porous substrate (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–10; p. 7, lines 3–15). KR’354 further discloses that the separator has opposite ends and a central portion in a longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15). KR’354 teaches that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate decreases gradually from both opposite ends toward the central portion in the longitudinal direction (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 1–10). KR’354 also teaches that the total thickness (Tc) of the first and second porous coating layers increases gradually from the opposite ends toward the central portion such that the total thickness (Ts + Tc) of the separator remains constant (p. 8, lines 5–15; p. 9, lines 10–20). However, KR’354 does not expressly disclose that the thickness (Ts) of the porous substrate is constant from the longitudinal center (C) to first and second predetermined positions (A, A′), nor does KR’354 expressly disclose that a region (AA′) between predetermined positions has an air permeability of 50% or more based on the air permeability of at least one of the outer regions (AE, A′E′), after being fixed through a hot-pressing process, as specifically recited in claim 13. Rather, KR’354 generally describes a gradual thickness gradient and does not quantify comparative air permeability percentages between defined regions after hot pressing. KR’361 discloses an electrode assembly in which a separator is folded in a zigzag manner and unit electrodes are disposed between overlapped portions of the separator (p. 4, lines 10–20; p. 6, lines 1–15). KR’361 teaches that distinct longitudinal regions of the separator correspond to structural regions in the stacked assembly, including topmost and bottommost end regions. This teaching recognizes that different portions of the separator occupy different stacking positions and therefore experience different mechanical con