Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/303,877

SEPARATOR AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
CULLEN, SEAN P
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
841 granted / 1222 resolved
+3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1271
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1222 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Status of Claims and Other Notes Claims 1–18 are pending. 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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0261322 A1. 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 20 April 2023 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: FIG. 3 does not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. The photographs or microphotographs are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. See US 2023/0261322 A1. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SEPARATOR INCLUDING SUBSTRATE WITH COATING HAVING CORE-SHELL POLYMER BINDER PARTICLE LARGER THAN INORGANIC PARTICLE, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1–18 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first coating comprises first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder comprising core-shell structured particles." It is unclear if the phrase "comprising core-shell structured particles" is further limiting "a first polymer binder" or "first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder." It is unclear if only "a first polymer binder" requires "core-shell structured particles" or one of "first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder" requires "core-shell structured particles." Claim 1 recites the limitation "small particle size." The term "small" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "small" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation "small particle size" is indefinite. Claims 2 and 3 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are also 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the first coating comprises a mono layer of particles." Claim 1, which claim 4 is directly dependent, recites the limitations "first inorganic particles" and "core-shell structured particles." It is unclear if "particles" recited in claim 4 is further limiting or referencing "first inorganic particles" and "core-shell structured particles" recited in claim 1 or if "particles" recited in claim 4 are additional particles. Claim 5 recites the limitation "small particle size." The term "small" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "small" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation "small particle size" is indefinite. Claim 5 recites the limitation "Dv50." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "Dv50." It is unclear if "Dv50" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "Dv50" recited in claim 1. Dv50 can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a particle size." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a particle size." It is unclear if "a particle size" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "a particle size" recited in claim 1. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a cumulative volume." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a cumulative volume." It is unclear if "a cumulative volume" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "a cumulative volume" recited in claim 1. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than cumulative volume. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a side of small particle size." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a side of small particle size." It is unclear if "a side of small particle size" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "a side of small particle size" recited in claim 1. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than side of small particle size. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a granularity distribution." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a granularity distribution." It is unclear if "a granularity distribution" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "a granularity distribution" recited in claim 1. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than granularity distribution. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a volume basis." Claim 1, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a volume basis." It is unclear if "a volume basis" recited in claim 5 is further limiting "a volume basis" recited in claim 1. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than volume basis. Claim 6 recites the limitation "Dv50." Claim 1, which claim 6 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "Dv50." It is unclear if "Dv50" recited in claim 6 is further limiting "Dv50" recited in claim 1. Dv50 can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claims 7–9 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 7–9 are also 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first coating comprises first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder comprising core-shell structured particles." It is unclear if the phrase "comprising core-shell structured particles" is further limiting "a first polymer binder" or "first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder." It is unclear if only "a first polymer binder" requires "core-shell structured particles" or one of "first inorganic particles and a first polymer binder" requires "core-shell structured particles." Claim 10 recites the limitation "small particle size." The term "small" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "small" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation "small particle size" is indefinite. Claims 11 and 12 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are also 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein the first coating comprises a mono layer of particles." Claim 10, which claim 13 is directly dependent, recites the limitations "first inorganic particles" and "core-shell structured particles." It is unclear if "particles" recited in claim 13 is further limiting or referencing "first inorganic particles" and "core-shell structured particles" recited in claim 10 or if "particles" recited in claim 13 is additional particles. Claim 14 recites the limitation "small particle size." The term "small" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "small" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation "small particle size" is indefinite. Claim 14 recites the limitation "Dv50." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "Dv50." It is unclear if "Dv50" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "Dv50" recited in claim 10. Dv50 can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a particle size." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a particle size." It is unclear if "a particle size" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "a particle size" recited in claim 10. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a cumulative volume." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a cumulative volume." It is unclear if "a cumulative volume" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "a cumulative volume" recited in claim 10. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than cumulative volume. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a side of small particle size." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a side of small particle size." It is unclear if "a side of small particle size" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "a side of small particle size" recited in claim 10. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than side of small particle size. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a granularity distribution." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a granularity distribution." It is unclear if "a granularity distribution" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "a granularity distribution" recited in claim 10. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than granularity distribution. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a volume basis." Claim 10, which claim 14 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "a volume basis." It is unclear if "a volume basis" recited in claim 14 is further limiting "a volume basis" recited in claim 10. A particle size can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than volume basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "Dv50." Claim 10, which claim 15 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "Dv50." It is unclear if "Dv50" recited in claim 15 is further limiting "Dv50" recited in claim 10. Dv50 can be measured by multiple methods and a particle may have more than one particle size. Claims 16–18 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claims 16–18 are also 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4, 7–10, 13, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (WO 2016/152026 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2018/0053963 A1). Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a separator (see functional layer-attached separator, [0219]) a porous substrate (see separator substrate, [0218]); and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (see functional layer, [0218]); the first coating comprises first inorganic particles (see barium sulfate, [0216]) and a first polymer binder comprising core-shell structured particles (see organic particles, [0217]); wherein the separator satisfies formula (4): 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder ≤ Dv50 of the first inorganic particles ≤ 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder formula (4) (TABLE 1, [0229]); Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis (TABLE 1, [0185]). Tanaka discloses a specific example with a first polymer binder having a Dv50 of 1.16 μm (i.e., 1160 nm) and first inorganic particles having a Dv50 of 0.8 μm (i.e., 800 nm) (TABLE 1, [0229]). 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.3 × 1.16 = 0.348 μm; and 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.7 × 1.16 = 0.812. Formula (4) is 0.348 μm ≤ 0.8 μm ≤ 0.812 μm. Tanaka also discloses an additional specific example with a first polymer binder having a Dv50 of 1.28 μm (i.e., 1280 nm) and first inorganic particles having a Dv50 of 0.8 μm (i.e., 800 nm) (TABLE 1, [0238]). 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.3 × 1.28 = 0.384 μm; and 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.7 × 1.28 = 0.896. Formula (4) is 0.384 μm ≤ 0.8 μm ≤ 0.896 μm. Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein the first coating comprises a mono layer of particles (TABLE 1, [0218]). Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein a core of the first polymer binder is a polymer formed by polymerizing of monomers selected from the group consisting of ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, styrene, chlorostyrene, fluorobenzene ethylene, methylstyrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, and any combination thereof (see methacrylic acid, [0211]). Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein a shell of the first polymer binder is a polymer formed by polymerizing of monomers selected from the group consisting of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylonitrile, methyl acrylonitrile, and any combination thereof (see surface layer portion, [0061]). Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein the first inorganic particles are selected from the group consisting of aluminium oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, hafnium dioxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, calcium oxide, zirconia, yttrium oxide, silicon carbide, boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, barium sulfate, and any combination thereof (see barium sulfate, [0217]). Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses an electrochemical device comprising positive electrode plate; negative electrode plate; and a separator arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (see non-aqueous secondary battery, [0227]), the separator (see functional layer-attached separator, [0219]) comprising: a porous substrate (see separator substrate, [0218]); and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (see functional layer, [0218]); the first coating comprises first inorganic particles (see barium sulfate, [0216]) and a first polymer binder comprising core-shell structured particles (see organic particles, [0217]); wherein the separator satisfies formula (4): 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder ≤ Dv50 of the first inorganic particles ≤ 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder formula (4) (TABLE 1, [0229]); Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis (TABLE 1, [0185]). Tanaka discloses a specific example with a first polymer binder having a Dv50 of 1.16 μm (i.e., 1160 nm) and first inorganic particles having a Dv50 of 0.8 μm (i.e., 800 nm) (TABLE 1, [0229]). 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.3 × 1.16 = 0.348 μm; and 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.7 × 1.16 = 0.812. Formula (4) is 0.348 μm ≤ 0.8 μm ≤ 0.812 μm. Tanaka also discloses an additional specific example with a first polymer binder having a Dv50 of 1.28 μm (i.e., 1280 nm) and first inorganic particles having a Dv50 of 0.8 μm (i.e., 800 nm) (TABLE 1, [0238]). 0.3 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.3 × 1.28 = 0.384 μm; and 0.7 × Dv50 of the first polymer binder = 0.7 × 1.28 = 0.896. Formula (4) is 0.384 μm ≤ 0.8 μm ≤ 0.896 μm. Regarding claim 13, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein the first coating comprises a mono layer of particles (TABLE 1, [0218]). Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein a core of the first polymer binder is a polymer formed by polymerizing of monomers selected from the group consisting of ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, styrene, chlorostyrene, fluorobenzene ethylene, methylstyrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, and any combination thereof (see methacrylic acid, [0211]). Regarding claim 17, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein a shell of the first polymer binder is a polymer formed by polymerizing of monomers selected from the group consisting of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylene, chlorostyrene, fluorostyrene, methylstyrene, acrylonitrile, methyl acrylonitrile, and any combination thereof (see surface layer portion, [0061]). Regarding claim 18, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein the first inorganic particles are selected from the group consisting of aluminium oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, hafnium dioxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, calcium oxide, zirconia, yttrium oxide, silicon carbide, boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, barium sulfate, and any combination thereof (see barium sulfate, [0217]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (WO 2016/152026 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2018/0053963 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Leng et al. (CN 109659470 A, hereinafter Leng). Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a separator, further comprising: a second coating arranged between the porous substrate and the first coating, wherein the second coating comprises comprising a second polymer binder and second inorganic particles. Leng discloses a separator (FIG. 1, [0030]) comprising a second coating (12) arranged between a porous substrate (11) and a first coating (13, [0030]), wherein the second coating (12) comprises comprising a second polymer binder and second inorganic particles ([0035], [0037]) to improve the thermal stability under high temperature conditions (see ceramic diaphragm, [0060]). Tanaka and Leng are analogous because they are directed to separators for electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the separator of Tanaka with a second coating as taught by Leng in order to improve the thermal stability under high temperature conditions. Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an electrochemical device, further comprising: a second coating arranged between the porous substrate and the first coating, wherein the second coating comprises comprising a second polymer binder and second inorganic particles. Leng discloses a separator (FIG. 1, [0030]) comprising a second coating (12) arranged between a porous substrate (11) and a first coating (13, [0030]), wherein the second coating (12) comprises comprising a second polymer binder and second inorganic particles ([0035], [0037]) to improve the thermal stability under high temperature conditions (see ceramic diaphragm, [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the separator of Tanaka with a second coating as taught by Leng in order to improve the thermal stability under high temperature conditions. Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (WO 2016/152026 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2018/0053963 A1). Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein the first coating further comprises an auxiliary binder (see particulate polymer, [0217]), and a mass ratio of the first polymer binder, the first inorganic particles, and the auxiliary binder is 0.8–17 : 98–69 : 0.8–20 ([0130], [0140]). Tanaka discloses a content of a first polymer binder is 1 to 20 parts by mass per 100 parts of first inorganic particles (see organic particles, [0130]) and a content of an auxiliary binder is 1 to 25 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of first inorganic particles (see particulate polymer, [0144]). Normalizing to 100 parts by mass in the first coating, Tanaka discloses a mass ratio of the first polymer binder, the first inorganic particles, and the auxiliary binder is 0.8–17 : 98–69 : 0.8–20. Although Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a range of 10–80 : 85–5 : 5–15, Tanaka does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a separator: wherein Dv50 of the first inorganic particles is in a range of 100 nm to 2000 nm (see inorganic particles, [0039]). Although Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a range of 240 nm to 420 nm, Tanaka does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein the first coating further comprises an auxiliary binder (see particulate polymer, [0217]), and a mass ratio of the first polymer binder, the first inorganic particles, and the auxiliary binder is 0.8–17 : 98–69 : 0.8–20 ([0130], [0140]). Tanaka discloses a content of a first polymer binder is 1 to 20 parts by mass per 100 parts of first inorganic particles (see organic particles, [0130]) and a content of an auxiliary binder is 1 to 25 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of first inorganic particles (see particulate polymer, [0144]). Normalizing to 100 parts by mass in the first coating, Tanaka discloses a mass ratio of the first polymer binder, the first inorganic particles, and the auxiliary binder is 0.8–17 : 98–69 : 0.8–20. Although Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a range of 10–80 : 85–5 : 5–15, Tanaka does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device: wherein Dv50 of the first inorganic particles is in a range of 100 nm to 2000 nm (see inorganic particles, [0039]). Although Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a range of 240 nm to 420 nm, Tanaka does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (WO 2016/152026 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2018/0053963 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. (US 2017/0162850 A1, hereinafter Murakami) and Meng et al. (CN 109167011 A, hereinafter Meng). Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses further a separator: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (1): 300 nm ≤ Dv50 ≤ 5000 nm formula (1) (TABLE 1, [0229]); wherein Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis (TABLE 1, [0185]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (2): Dv90 ≤ 1.5 × Dv50 Dv90 represents a particle size which reaches 90% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis. Murakami discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate; and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate; the first coating comprises a first polymer binder (see laminated porous film, [0132]); wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (2): Dv90 ≤ 1.5 × Dv50 to balance the ion permeability and weight of the separator (see particle size distribution, [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first polymer binder of Tanaka with the particle size distribution of Murakami in order to balance the ion permeability and weight of the separator. Modified Tanaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (3): Dn10 ≤ 200 nm; Dn10 represents a particle size which reaches 10% of a cumulative number from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a number basis. Meng a separator comprising a porous substrate; and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate; the first coating comprises a particle (see ceramic coated special diaphragms, [0006]); wherein the particle satisfies formula (3): Dn10 ≤ 200 nm; Dn10 represents a particle size which reaches 10% of a cumulative number from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a number basis (see D10, [0034]) to improve the dispersibility of the particle resulting in enhanced coating performance (see dispersion property, [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first polymer binder of modified Tanaka with the Dn10 of Meng in order to improve the dispersibility of the particle resulting in enhanced coating performance. Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses further an electrochemical device: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (1): 300 nm ≤ Dv50 ≤ 5000 nm formula (1) (TABLE 1, [0229]); wherein Dv50 represents a particle size which reaches 50% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis (TABLE 1, [0185]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (2): Dv90 ≤ 1.5 × Dv50 Dv90 represents a particle size which reaches 90% of a cumulative volume from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a volume basis. Murakami discloses a separator comprising a porous substrate; and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate; the first coating comprises a first polymer binder (see laminated porous film, [0132]); wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (2): Dv90 ≤ 1.5 × Dv50 to balance the ion permeability and weight of the separator (see particle size distribution, [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first polymer binder of Tanaka with the particle size distribution of Murakami in order to balance the ion permeability and weight of the separator. Modified Tanaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first polymer binder satisfies formula (3): Dn10 ≤ 200 nm; Dn10 represents a particle size which reaches 10% of a cumulative number from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a number basis. Meng a separator comprising a porous substrate; and a first coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate; the first coating comprises a particle (see ceramic coated special diaphragms, [0006]); wherein the particle satisfies formula (3): Dn10 ≤ 200 nm; Dn10 represents a particle size which reaches 10% of a cumulative number from a side of small particle size in a granularity distribution on a number basis (see D10, [0034]) to improve the dispersibility of the particle resulting in enhanced coating performance (see dispersion property, [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the first polymer binder of modified Tanaka with the Dn10 of Meng in order to improve the dispersibility of the particle resulting in enhanced coating performance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT. 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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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. /Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603322
NONWOVEN FABRIC MADE OF THICK AND THIN FIBERS, AND SOLID ELECTROLYTE SHEET INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603342
BATTERY MODULE INCLUDING BUS BAR ASSEMBLY SLIDELY DISPOSED ON ELECTRODE TABS OF BATTERY CELLS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586868
SEPARATOR INCLUDING INORGANIC POROUS COATING LAYER INCLUDING POLAR BINDER AND ACRYLIC BINDER WITH DIFFERENT GLASS TRANSITION TEMPERATURES, ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573683
BATTERY MODULE INCLUDING POUCH CELL MODULE WITH CELLS SEPARATED BY INSULATOR AND TABS EXTENDING ACROSS INSULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573660
LITHIUM-ION-CONDUCTING COMPOSITE MATERIAL CONTAINING POLYMER AND MONODISPERSE AND SPHERICAL LITHIUM-ION CONDUCTING PARTICLES AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1222 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month