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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 and 19 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first binder polymer comprises an acrylic polymer, polyacrylic acid, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, or two or more of them”. For enhanced clarity, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the first binder polymer comprises an acrylic polymer, polyacrylic acid, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, or a combination thereof
Claim 5 recites “the second binder” in line 2. For consistency throughout the claims, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the second binder polymer”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second binder comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trichloroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-tetrafluoroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trifluoroethylene), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(ethylhexyl acrylate), poly(butyl acrylate), poly(acrylonitrile), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(vinyl acetate), poly(ethylhexyl acrylate-co-methyl methacrylate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), polyethylene oxide, poly(arylate), or two or more of them”. For enhanced clarity, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the second binder comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trichloroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-tetrafluoroethylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co- trifluoroethylene), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(ethylhexyl acrylate), poly(butyl acrylate), poly(acrylonitrile), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(vinyl acetate), poly(ethylhexyl acrylate-co-methyl methacrylate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), polyethylene oxide, poly(arylate), or a combination thereof .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2015/0140403 A1) further in view of Noumi et al. (US 2010/0227223 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/18/2026).
Regarding Claim 1:
Moon discloses a separator (10) for a lithium secondary battery (100), comprising a polyolefin porous support (porous base, 1), an inorganic composite porous layer (porous coating layer, 2) disposed on at least one surface of the polyolefin porous support (porous base, 1), and a porous adhesive layer (first adhesive layer, 3) disposed on the inorganic composite porous layer (porous coating layer, 2) (Figures 1 and 2, [0032, 0052, 0065]). Moon further discloses that the polyolefin porous support (porous base, 1) may be a membrane or fibrous base formed from polyethylene (Figure 1, [0051]). Moon further discloses that the inorganic composite porous layer (porous coating layer, 2) comprises an inorganic filler (inorganic particles) and a first binder polymer (polymer particles) (Figure 1, [0052]). Moon further discloses that the porous adhesive layer (first adhesive layer, 3) comprising a second binder polymer (Figure 1, [0061-0062]).
Moon is deficient in disclosing that the separator is a crosslinked structure-containing separator and that the polyolefin porous support is a crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support having a crosslinked structure comprising polymer chains interconnected directly with one another.
Noumi discloses a separator (4) for a lithium secondary battery (cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery, 1), the separator (4) comprising a crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer (resin sheet) (Figure 1, [0019, 0021, 0052-0053]). Noumi further discloses that the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer (resin sheet) has a crosslinked structure comprising polymer chains interconnected directly with one another [0021-0024]. Noumi further discloses that the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer (resin sheet) comprises polyethylene [0023].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the polyolefin porous support of Moon, the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer of Noumi, as it is known in the art as a suitable polyethylene-containing polyolefin layer for use in a separator of a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Noumi. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Moon does not explicitly disclose that the crosslinked structure-containing separator (10) has a heat shrinkage of 20% or less in each of machine direction and transverse direction, as determined after allowing the crosslinked structure-containing separator (10) to stand at 150°C for 30 minutes.
However, the instant specification teaches that the inorganic composite porous layer includes an inorganic filler and a first binder polymer which attaches the inorganic filler particles to one another so that they may retain their binding states, and the inorganic filler may be bound to the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support by the first binder polymer (p.14, lines 19-23). The instant specification further teaches that the inorganic composite porous layer prevents the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support from undergoing severe heat shrinking behavior at high temperatures, specifically such that the heat shrinkage may be 20% or less in each of the machine and transverse directions after allowing the separator to stand at 150°C for 30 minutes (p.15, lines 1-6).
As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Moon discloses that the inorganic composite porous layer (porous coating layer, 2) comprises an inorganic filler (inorganic particles) and a first binder polymer (polymer particles) (Figure 1, [0052]). As such, the skilled artisan would expect that the inorganic composite porous layer (porous coating layer, 2) would prevent the separator (10) from heat shrinkage over 20% under the claimed conditions. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Moon further discloses that a weight ratio of the inorganic filler (inorganic particles) to the first binder polymer (polymer particles) may be 97:3 [0097]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Moon further discloses that the first binder polymer (polymer particles) may be an acrylic polymer (acrylic acid ester-based polymer) [0097]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Moon further discloses that the second binder polymer may be polyvinylidene fluoride [0036]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Moon further discloses that the porous adhesive layer (first adhesive layer, 3) has a pattern (dots) having at least one adhesive portion (region where dots are placed) containing the second binder polymer and at least one non-coated portion (region where dots are not placed) having no adhesive portion (Figure 1, [0061-0062]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the polyolefin porous support (porous base, 1) of modified Moon is the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer of Noumi. Noumi further discloses that the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer has a meltdown temperature of above 170°C [0079]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the polyolefin porous support (porous base, 1) of modified Moon is the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer of Noumi. Noumi further discloses that the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin layer has a shutdown temperature of 150°C or less [0049]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or are “merely close” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Regarding Claim 19 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Moon as modified by Noumi discloses the crosslinked structure-containing separator of Claim 1 as set forth above. Moon further discloses a lithium secondary battery (100) comprising a positive electrode (cathode, 114), a negative electrode (anode, 112) and a separator (113) interposed between the positive electrode (cathode, 114) and the negative electrode (anode, 112), wherein the separator (113) is the crosslinked structure-containing separator (10) of Claim 1 (Figures 1 and 2, [0063, 0067]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 19 are met.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 8-13 of copending Application No. 18/289,387 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/289,632 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11-12 and 26 of copending Application No. 18/289,203 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 12-13, and 17-21 of copending Application No. 18/289,206 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5-11, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/289,182 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/266,045 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application addresses all of the limitations of the instant claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights