DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 08/02/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 08/02/2023 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered. Drawings The drawings received 08/02/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim s 1 and 3- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2013/0059192 to Kajita . Regarding claim s 1 and 5 , Kajita discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Title) , comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a separator (para 26) , wherein the separator has: a porous substrate (2 , para 77 ) formed from polyolefin resin (re claim 5 ) ; and heat-resistant layers (3, Fig. 1) each including a filler and a binder (para 152) , the heat-resistant layers include: a first heat-resistant layer formed on a first surface of the substrate facing the positive electrode; and a second heat-resistant layer formed on a second surface (on at least one side , Abstract) the substrate facing the negative electrode (para 79 ) Regarding the limitations: the first heat-resistant layer is formed as a sheet on the first surface of the substrate, and the second heat-resistant layer is formed as dots on the second surface of the facing the negative electrode , and an average value of pitch of a plurality of the dots is greater than or equal to 30 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm , Kajita discloses two embodiments (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4D, Fig. 5 A) wherein heat resistant layers (3) can be in form of a sheet or formed as dots (para 90, para 91) and formed either on one or both surfaces of the base layer (2). Since Kajita teaches a finite number of embodiment It would have been obvious to choose the first layer in the sheet form from embodiment of Fig.1 and dotted second layers fr o m embodiment depicted on ( Fig. 2, Fig. 4D, Fig. 5A ) facing negative electrode from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions because it would have been "obvious to try" the above mentioned structural combination in order to obtain separator by which positive and negative electrodes can be restrained from being damaged or broken upon expansion of the negative electrode, and for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery in which the separator is used . See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale E, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). In addition , Kajita disclosed that that value of pitch is in the range from µm 10 to 500 µm . In the case where the claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the value of pitch within the range of Kajita in order to in order to obtain separator by which positive and negative electrodes can be restrained from being damaged or broken upon expansion of the negative electrode, and for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery in which the separator is used. Regarding claim 3 , Kajita disclosed the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since the criticality an average value of diameters of circumscribed circles of the plurality of the dots constituting the second heat-resistant layer is greater than or equal to 30 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm -a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such parameters in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Kajita , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize said diameters as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 3. Regarding claim 4 , Kajita disclosed the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Kajita does not expressly disclose , wherein the plurality of the dots constituting the second heat- resistant layer are cylindrically formed. However, The courts have held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape of dots constituting the second heat- resistant layer into cylindrical to obtain separator by which positive and negative electrodes can be restrained from being damaged or broken upon expansion of the negative electrode, and for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery in which the separator is used. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record- US 20130059192 , US 20180309108 , US 20200287192 , US 20210249735 - fail t teach or suggest each and every limitations of claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7703 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT IFP . 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 Jonathan Leong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1292 . 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. /Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751