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. SEPARATOR FOR AN ELECTRIC STORAGE DEVICE Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/ 282,056 Art Unit: 1727 March 20 , 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 1 4 , 2023 has been entered. Claims 24-48 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Interpretation Claim s 24 and 36 recites an intended use for a separator . The courts have held that “i f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror , 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 24-35 and 41-43, and 45-47 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. Claims 24 and 41 recite “ND-MD cross section” which is unclear. It is unclear as to what Applicant is referring to and the original disclosure does not provide any specific definition or direction. For purposes of compact prosecution, any average major pore diameter recited in the prior art will read on the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 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. Claim (s) 24 -2 6, 30 - 4 4 , 46 -48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 2017/0018749 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 07/21/24 ) . As to Claims 24 -25 , 30 -31 , 33, 35 -37 , 39 - 4 4 , 47-48, Sugawara discloses a battery, comprising: a negative electrode; a positive electrode comprising LiFePO 4 ; and a separator arranged therebetween ( paragraphs [ 0099 and 0168] ). Said separator comprises: a microporous membrane having a substrate, comprising: a first laminar polypropylene region ( microporous layer (B) /second porous surface ; and reads on containing more than 70 wt% PP ) having a first average major pore diameter of 100-500 nm and a second laminar polypropylene region ( microporous layer (A ) /first porous surface ; and reads on containing more than 70 wt% PP ) adjacent the first laminar region and having an average major pore diameter larger than the first laminar region and from 250 nm to 1200 nm ( Abstract and paragraphs [000 3 , 0021-0022, 0035 and 0042 ]) . These ranges overlap with the claimed ratio. In addition, Sugawara teaches that the average pore diameter if a result-effective variable that can be appropriately adjusted to provide a separator with improved handling properties (paragraphs [0010 and 0040]). The courts have held that i n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) ; and that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation , see MPEP 2144.05, I, A and II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify and optimize the separator of Sugawara to read on the claims because Sugawara teaches that a separator with improved handling properties and a battery with improved performance can be provided (paragraphs [0010 and 0040]) . As to Claims 26 , 32 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46, Sugawara discloses the same separator as the claimed invention. It is the position of the Office that the separator of the prior art intrinsically has the claimed properties given that the structure and materials of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112. As to Claim 34, Sugawara does not specifically disclose that the second laminar region faces the negative electrode. However, there are a known finite number of options for arranging the claimed microporous layers and the courts have held that a person having ordinary skill int eh art would have good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and if this leads to anticipated success, it is likely that the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Sugawara to read on the claims because Sugawara teaches that a separator with improved handling properties and a battery with improved performance can be provided (paragraphs [0010 and 0040]). Claim (s) 27-29 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 2017/0018749 A1; as found in IDS dated 07/21/24) as applied to claims 24-26, 30-44, 46-48 above and in further view of Xiao et al. (US 2019/0267599 A1; as found in IDS dated 10/16/25) . As to Claims 27-29 and 45, Sugawara does not specifically disclose the claimed microporous layer (C). However, Xiao teaches of a separator that comprises three polypropylene microporous layers arranged in order, and wherein the average pore diameter ranges from 0.02-0.06 microns (Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0099-0100, 0114, and Table 2). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Sugawara to comprise the claimed microporous PP layer (C) with the claimed average pore diameter ratios because Xiao teaches that a separator with improved dielectric break down sand strength properties is provided (Abstract). In addition, the average pore diameter if a result-effective variable that can be appropriately adjusted to provide a separator with improved handling properties (paragraphs [0010 and 0040]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation , see MPEP 2144.05, I, A and II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify and optimize the separator of modified Sugawara to read on the claims because Sugawara teaches that a separator with improved handling properties and a battery with improved performance can be provided (paragraphs [0010 and 0040]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727