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
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged. It should be noted, however, that any information disclosed by a continuation-in-part that is not present in the parent application does not receive the benefit of the earlier filing date of the parent. In particular, Claims 31, 35 and any further claims dependent upon them include the limitation of multiple instantiations of an integrated electrode-separator component as well as having the two instances be in contact with each other In various ways. Further, claim 24 has the limitation of an edge region of the separator that doesn’t have an electrode. These limitations are newly added by the instant application and are not present in any parent application. The priority date of these limitations is therefore set to the filing date of the instant application which is 05/16/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 41-78 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/21/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-40 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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 4 and 8 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the applicant uses the phrase “preferentially” when referring to the alignment of wires in the first and second layers. This is indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the alignment is a required limitation of the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is being interpreted as the wires of the first layer are aligned in a first direction and the wires of the second layer are aligned in a second direction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20, 25, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (US 20150287967 A1, provided by the applicant IDS filed 06/28/2024) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 20160093860 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Joo teaches a separator comprising a layer that has a nanofiber mat where the mat contains nanofibers (Joo 0005). Further, the separator has a thickness between 10 and 500 micrometers which overlaps with the instant application at 10 micrometers (Joo 0054) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Joo further teaches that the nanofibers have a diameter of less than 1 micrometer and have an aspect ratio of at least 100 (Joo 0010), both of which are within the ranges as stated by the instant application and form a prima facie case of obviousness.
Joo teaches that the separator is used to separate an anode and a cathode in a battery but is silent to being explicitly integrated with either electrode. Miyazaki teaches a separator containing fibers where the separator is a bonding separator bonded to the electrode substrate (Miyazaki 0053, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the separator of Joo having a mat containing nanofibers and bond it to an adjacent electrode as described in Miyazaki as doing so means that no gaps are formed between the separator and electrode when the battery stack gets bent or otherwise manipulated. It also would be obvious to use the two layered structure of Miyazaki as doing so improves the strength of the separator (Miyazaki 0053).
Regarding claim 4, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Miyazaki further teaches that the fibers of a separator layer can be mixed with a filler and oriented in one direction and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do this as the fibers can have a larger bonding strength via the fillers which leads to an improvement in the strength of the layer (Miyazaki 0053). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to orient the mat of Joo while adding filler to strengthen the layer as described in Miyazaki.
Regarding claim 5, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Miyazaki further teaches that the separator can have a multilayer structure with two or more layers as a coating layer reinforces the separator substrate (Miyazaki 0053).
Regarding claim 6, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 5 as described above and Miyazaki teaches the separator can be a bonding separator which necessarily comprises some sort of adhesive in order to properly bond as well as binder particles to bond the fibers and filler particles together which can be described as an adhesive.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 5 as described above and Miyazaki teaches that the fibers in different layers, first fibers and second fibers, can be oriented with the help of fillers to increase strength and that different layers can have different orientations (Miyazaki 0053, 0063, fig. 7).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Joo further teaches that the fibers can be a mix of a ceramic and polyisoprene (Joo 0034) which has a melting point of 64oC which is a value within the given range forming a prima facie case of obviousness. It is also taught in an example that 90.5 wt% of a fiber is a polymer (Joo 0099) which is considered to be about 90% and forms a prima facie case of obviousness in view of routine experimentation and optimization of ranges see MPEP 2144.05. While the example is directed to polyacrylonitrile rather than polyisoprene It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to be able to replace acrylonitrile with any polymer listed previously in the specification of Joo.
Regarding claims 12-14, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Joo further teaches a porosity of the separator, the nanofiber mat in this case, is at least 10% and can go up to at least 80% (Joo 0007) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claims 15-17, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Joo further teaches that the nanofibers can be made with a metal oxide that comprises one or more metals including aluminum oxide (Joo 0027). Further doping a material involves introducing impurities to modify electrical properties, in this case the oxide in aluminum oxide can be considered a dopant.
Regarding claim 18, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Joo teaches that the nanofibers have a length of greater than 1 micrometer which is a length range overlapping with the instant application and forms a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above but do not explicitly teach a thickness of a coating layer. Joo does teach, however, that the diameter of the nanofiber can be in the range of 50 nm (Joo 0038) and fig.1 shows that the nanofiber has a coating layer that has a thickness significantly smaller than the diameter of the nanofiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the thickness of the coating layer for the nanofiber of Joo can be in the range of 30 nm or less with routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Joo teaches a nanofiber mat in which the fibers interact and wrap around each other and can be considered bundled (Joo fig, 7).
Regarding claim 25, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Miyazaki further teaches that the electrode has a current collector on one side of the electrode substrate which is connected to the separator (Miyazaki 0040, fig. 3).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above and Miyazaki further teaches that the separator can be a bonding separator bonded to the electrodes, in this case at least a positive and a negative electrode on opposite sides of the separator and with respective current collectors (Miyazaki 0053, fig. 3). The existence of the phrase “bonding separator” implies the use of an adhesive to bond the separator with the electrodes.
Regarding claim 30, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 28 as described above and Miyazaki teaches an electrolyte that infiltrates the battery cell (Miyazaki 0038).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Miyazaki and further in view of Clement et al. (US 20140272535 A1).
Regarding claim 9, , Joo in view of Miyazaki teach claim 1 as described above but are silent to a thickness of the separator between .5 and 5 micrometers. Joo teaches that the separator thickness can have any suitable thickness (¶ 0054) prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art. In a similar field of endeavor, Clement teaches a battery separator that containing fibers where the thickness of the separator can vary greatly within a workable range from 0 to 5 millimeters (Clement 0051). The claimed range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the separator thickness range as discussed in Clement for the separator present in modified Joo as doing so allows for the optimization of parameters such as diffusion time and compressibility (Clement, table 1).
Claim(s) 21-23 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Miyazaki and further in view of Spare (US 20150214578 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a non-rectangular shape or a hole penetrating through the electrode-separator component. Spare teaches a battery cell that includes a set of electrode sheets that form a non-rectangular, round shape, such as a ring, that facilitates an efficient use of space (Spare 0026, fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take modified Joo and form the electrode separator component into a non-rectangular shape, such as a ring, as doing so facilitates efficient use of space.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 25 as described above but is silent to the formation of multiple instances of the electrode-separator component. Spare teaches electrodes containing multiple layers stacked on top of each other to facilitate efficient use of space (Spare 0007). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take modified Joo and stack a bunch of them on top of each other to form a battery component stack that would fit the claimed limitation as doing so facilitates efficient use of space. In this scenario each separator is distinct and not one continuous layer.
Claim(s) 24, 31-35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Miyazaki and further in view of Senoue (US 20190334178 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above but are silent to an edge region where there is a separator but no electrode. In a similar field of endeavor relating to Lithium batteries, Senoue teaches a battery with a separator present that separates a negative electrode from a positive electrode (Abstract, Fig. 3). It also teaches the separator extending beyond the electrode portion to form an edge portion devoid of an electrode (Senoue fig. 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to take modified Joo and extend the separator outside of the electrode portion as doing so prevents a short circuit (Senoue 0009) yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to multiple instances of the electrode-separator component. Senoue teaches multiple separators with multiple electrodes stacked on top of each other where the multiple separators are connected together (Senoue fig. 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take modified Joo and stack more of them on top of each other like shown by Senoue as doing so increases the electrical capacity of a battery as well as preventing shorts by connecting the separators together (Senoue 0009).
Regarding claim 32, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 31 as described above and Senoue further teaches that the separators are laminated and connected to each other with resin layers (Senoue 0031).
Regarding claim 33, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 31 as described above but does not explicitly teach a difference in orientation of the small wires in the first separator vs the second separator. Miyazaki does, however, teach that multiple layers can be put on a separator substrate in different orientations It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to simply rearrange the second separator to have the first layer oriented in the D4 direction rather than the D3 direction as doing so does not modify the operation of the device and simply rearranging parts with no operational differences is not patentably significant (Miyazaki fig. 7).
Regarding claim 34, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 31 as described above and Senoue teaches that the electrolyte infiltrates the separator which is between the positive and negative electrodes (Senoue 0010, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Joo in view of Miyazaki teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to multiple instances of the electrode-separator component. Senoue teaches a battery stack with multiple separators between positive and negative electrodes where the separator is in contact with both the positive and negative electrodes on each side. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take modified Joo and stack more of them on top of each other like shown by Senoue as doing so increases the electrical capacity of a battery (Senoue fig. 3).
Regarding claim 40, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 35 as described above and Senoue teaches that the electrolyte infiltrates the separator which is between the positive and negative electrodes (Senoue 0010, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Miyazaki, Senoue, and Spare
Regarding claims 36-38, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 35 as described above but is silent to a difference in a lateral dimension of the first and second electrode-separator components. Spare teaches a variety of different shapes for batteries dependent on the space available. An example of one of these batteries is shown in Fig. 1 where there are at least 3 electrodes present with the first electrode being smaller than the second which is in turn smaller than the third (Spare 0007, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the electrode-separator component of modified Joo and stack at least three of them on top of each other in the manner shown by Spare as doing so facilitates an efficient use of space inside an electronic device (Spare 0007).
Regarding claim 39, Joo in view of Miyazaki and Senoue teaches claim 35 as described above but is silent to current collector strips extending from the electrode-separator components. Spare teaches conductive tabs extending from the electrodes (current collector) which form a positive and negative terminal. The conductive tabs are also covered in an insulating material, in this case, the exterior portion of the separator as described by Senoue is an insulating material and a part of the separator (Senoue 0018, Spare 0043 Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take modified Joo and add current collecting tabs and respective terminals as described by Spare as doing so allows the resulting battery provide power to an external device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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 R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights