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 with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 02/11/16 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would allegedly not be unduly burdensome to search for all of the “different inventions” or at least search for more than one of the “different inventions.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive insofar as the allegation that a search for one or more other of the “different inventions” would not be unduly burdensome is in no way substantiated or proven by Applicant. Applicant presents said assertion but does not provide any further and convincing evidence and/or arguments to conclusively prove t hat said search would not be unduly burdensome. Therefore, a search for one or more other of the “different inventions” is interpreted as being unduly burdensome for the reasons set forth in the 12/11/25 Requirement for Restriction. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, it is suggested that each chemical formula (e.g. LiClO4) be written using subscripted numerical values (e.g. LiClO 4 ) . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 1-11 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 that the one or both of the claimed polymers are “polymers from 1,4,5,8-naphthalenetetracarboxylic acid and aromatic tetraamines.” Accordingly, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit polymers are considered “polymers from” said types of materials, or what shared relationship/characteristics exists, if any, between a “polymer from” one of said types of materials and one of said types of materials explicitly. The term “ versions ” (in the phrase “sulfonated versions thereof”) in C laim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ versions ” 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. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit polymers constitute a sulfonated “version” of one of the instantly claimed materials, or otherwise what characteristics one of the instantly claimed material must exhibit/posse s s in order to be considered a sulfonated “version” of one of the instantly claimed materials. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hybrid separator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the preamble refers to a “polymer hybrid separator” explicitly). Claim 2 is 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. The term “ type ” (e.g. in the phrase “borate type”) in C laim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ type ” 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. In other words, Claim 2 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit inorganic solid electrolyte materials constitute a “type” of one of the instantly claimed materials as opposed to one of the instantly claimed materials explicitly (e.g. a material which is a borate, as opposed to a borate “type”). Claim 2 recites the limitation “ said separator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the preamble refers to a “polymer hybrid separator” explicitly). Claim s 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation “ said separator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the preamble refers to a “polymer hybrid separator” explicitly). Claim 4 is 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 4 recites that the lithium salt may be an “ionic-liquid based lithium salt.” Accordingly, Claim 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit lithium salts are considered “ionic-liquid based” lithium salts, or what shared relationship/characteristics exists, if any, between an “ionic-liquid based” lithium salt as opposed to any other lithium salt. Claim 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is replete with both chemical formulas and chemical names which have the same meaning (e.g. “lithium perchlorate, LiClO4”), but are nonetheless listed as separate and distinct materials. It is suggested that parentheses be utilized to differentiate between formulas and names which have the same meaning (e.g. “lithium perchlorate (LiClO4)”). Claim 5 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, C laim 5 recites the broad recitation 5-95% by volume, and the Claim also recites 30-85% by volume which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and the r efore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 5 recites the limitation “ said separator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the preamble refers to a “polymer hybrid separator” explicitly). Claim 6 is 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 6 recites that the lithium ion-conducting polymer is , for example, poly(ethylene oxide) or poly(ethylene glycol). Accordingly, Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what difference exists between said materials given that, in general, poly(ethylene oxide) or poly(ethylene glycol) are different but equivalent names for the same material. Claim 6 recites that the lithium ion-conducting polymer is, for example, poly(methyl methacrylate) or polymethyl methacrylate. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what difference exists between said materials given that, in general, poly(methyl methacrylate) or polymethyl methacrylate are different but equivalent names for the same material. Claim 6 recites that the lithium-ion conducting polymer is, for example, a “sulfonated derivative” of one of the instantly claimed materials. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit materials are considered a “sulfonated derivative” of the claimed types of materials, or what shared relationship/characteristics exists, if any, between a “sulfonated derivative” one of said types of materials and one of said types of materials explicitly. Claim 6 recites the limitation “ said separator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the preamble refers to a “polymer hybrid separator” explicitly). Claim 8 is 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 8 recites that the flame-retardant additive may be a “phosphorous-based flame retardant.” Accordingly, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit flame retardants are considered “ phosphorous-based, ” or what shared relationship/characteristics exists, if any, between a “ phosphorous-based ” flame retardant as opposed to any other flame-retardant. Claim 11 is 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. The term “ type ” (e.g. in the phrase “oxide type”) in C laim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ type ” 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. In other words, Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what specific/explicit inorganic solid electrolyte materials constitute a “type” of one of the instantly claimed materials as opposed to one of the instantly claimed materials explicitly (e.g. a material which is an oxide, as opposed to an oxide “type”). 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 . Claims 1-2, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0294461) , and further in view o f Kishimoto et al . (6,528,205) and Kanamura et al. (US 2014/0329130). Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches a composite film (“polymer hybrid separator”) and a lithium secondary battery comprising the composite film therein as a separator interposed between the positive and negative electrodes (Abstract, [0002], [0012] , [0088] ). Feng teaches that the composite film comprises a porous separator and a fiber layer disposed on a surface of the porous separator ([0016]). Feng teaches that the fiber layer comprises multiple fibers (“first fibers”) of polyetherimide (“poly(ether imide)”) (“first thermally stable polymer”) and multiple fibers (“second fibers”) of an auxiliary polymer (“second thermally stable polymer”) which is not polyetherimide , wherein the auxiliary polymer is , for example, at least one of polyacrylonitrile (“polyacrylonitrile”), coply (ether ether ketone) (“PEEK”), polyether sulfone (“polyether sulfone”), and polyamide-imide (“poly(amide imide)”) ([0020]-[0021]). Feng teaches that said multiple fibers of polyetherimide and said multiple fibers of auxiliary polymer intersect at multiple points of intersection (“first fibers intersect the second fibers” at “multiple points of intersection”) ([0026]-[0028]). Feng does not explicitly teach that the multiple fibers of polyetherimide and the multiple fibers of auxiliary polymer are also bonded at multiple points of intersection. However, Kishimoto teaches a separator for a sealed battery cell (Abstract). Kishimoto teaches that the separator comprises fibers, wherein particles serving as an adhesive are positioned at the locations where the fibers intersect with one another (col. 3 lines 19-31). Kishimoto teaches that said particles absorb positional changes of the fibers and restores them, thereby enhancing the repulsive force and restoration force upon compression characteristics of the separator (col. 3 lines 19-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would bond the multiple fibers of polyetherimide and multiple fibers of auxiliary polymer of Feng at multiple points of intersection by positioning adhesive particles at said multiple points of intersection, as taught by Kishimoto , given that such adhesive particles would help absorb positional changes of fibers and restore them, thereby enhancing the repulsive force and restoration force upon compression characteristics of the composite film. Feng, as modified by Kishimoto , does not explicitly teach that the composite film has a thickness in accordance with the instantly claimed range. However, it is first noted that Feng teaches that the fiber layer has a thickness of about 0.5-30 microns, that an inorganic particle layer having a thickness of about 0.5-3 microns is disposed between the fiber layer and the porous separator, and that the porous separator is, for example, formed of polypropylene ([0017], [0023] , [0032], [0038] ). Furthermore , Kanamura teaches a lithium secondary battery separator (Abstract). Kanamura teaches that the separator comprises a separator substrate and a heat-resistant polyimide film on a surface thereof ([0010]). Kanamura teaches that the separator substrate is, for example, formed of polypropylene ( [0012]). Kanamura teaches that the separator substrate exhibits a thickness of 10-300 microns ([0045]). Kanamura teaches that if the separator substrate is thinner than said lower limit, then the strength of the separator cannot be secured, whereas if the separator substrate is thicker than said upper limit, then ohmic resistance characteristics increase rendering any battery unsuitable for use ([0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the porous separator of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto , such that it has a thickness of 10-300 microns, as taught by Kanamura , given that such a thickness would help secure the strength of the porous separator while helping prevent an increase to ohmic resistance that would render the lithium secondary battery unsuitable for use. Accordingly, the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura is interpreted as having a thickness of about 11-333 microns (i.e. [about 0.5-30 microns] + [about 0.5-3 microns] + [10-300 microns]). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Regarding Claim 2, Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Furthermore, Feng teaches that an inorganic particle layer is disposed between the fiber layer and the porous separator, wherein the inorganic particle layer includes inorganic particles of at least one of a transition metal oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and transition metal sulfide (“the separator further comprises an inorganic material selected from (a) particles or…”) ([0032]-[0033]). Regarding Claim 6, Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Furthermore, Feng teaches that an inorganic particle layer is disposed between the fiber layer and the porous separator, wherein the inorganic particle layer includes inorganic particles and adhesive particles ([0032]-[0033]). Feng teaches that the adhesive particles are specifically configured to adhere the inorganic particles to the porous separator ([0036]). Feng teaches, for example, that the adhesive particles are formed of polyoxyethylene (“poly(ethylene oxide)” and “poly(ethylene glycol)”), polyacrylonitrile (“poly(acrylonitrile)”), polymethyl methacrylate (“poly(methyl methacrylate)” and “polymethyl methacrylate”), polyvinylidene fluoride (“poly(vinylidene fluoride)”), and poly(vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene) (“poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene”) ([0036]). Accordingly, because the porous separator necessarily includes pores, and the adhesive particles are in direct contact with the porous separator, then the porous separator (and therefore the composite film) includes pores which are filled, to at least some degree, with said adhesive particles (each of which is interpreted as a “lithium ion-conducting polymer” based on the characterization of the materials listed in Claim 6 as lithium ion-conducting polymers). Regarding Claim 9, Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Furthermore, Feng teaches that the lithium secondary battery comprises a positive electrode (“cathode”), a negative electrode (“anode”), the composite film disposed between said electrodes, and an electrolyte (“working electrolyte”) ([0088]-[0089]). Claims 3-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0294461) , and further in view o f Kishimoto et al . (6,528,205) and Kanamura et al. (US 2014/0329130) and Adams et al. (US 2020/0161618). Regarding Claim s 3 -4 , Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , does not explicitly teach that the composite film comprises 0.1-30 wt % of a lithium salt. However, Adams teaches a battery separator (Abstract). Adams teaches that the separator comprises an electrolyte additive therein which is released from the separator into an electrolyte when the separator is incorporated into a battery ([0017]). Adams teaches, for example, that the electrolyte additive is an LiPF 6 salt stabilizer such as LiF , or that the electrolyte additive is an Al corrosion inhibitor such as LiBOB ([0022], [0080]-[0081]). Adams teaches that the electrolyte additive is present in the separator in an amount of 1000 to 200,000 ppm ([0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further include, in the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , 1000 to 200,000 ppm (i.e. 0.1-20 wt %) of LiF (“lithium salt” which is “ LiX ” where “X = F”) as an electrolyte additive, as taught by Adams, given that such an additive would allow the composite film to help provide enhanced LiPF 6 salt stabilization characteristics when incorporated into a battery. Alternatively, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further include, in the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , 1000 to 200,000 ppm (i.e. 0.1-20 wt %) of LiBOB (“lithium salt” which is “ LiBOB ”) as an electrolyte additive, as taught by Adams, given that such an additive would allow the composite film to help inhibit corrosion from Al when incorporated into a battery. Regarding Claims 7-8, Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Feng does not explicitly teach that the composite film comprises a flame-retardant additive. However, Adams teaches a battery separator (Abstract). Adams teaches that the separator comprises an electrolyte additive therein which is released from the separator into an electrolyte when the separator is incorporated into a battery ([0017]). Adams teaches, for example, that the electrolyte additive is a flame retardant additive such as a halogenated flame retardant or a phosphate flame retardant. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further include, in the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , a halogenated or phosphate flame retardant (“flame-retardant additive”) as an electrolyte additive, as taught by Adams, given that such an additive would allow the composite film to help improve flame retardance characteristics when incorporated into a battery. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0294461) , and further in view o f Kishimoto et al . (6,528,205) and Kanamura et al. (US 2014/0329130) and Huang (US 2014/0038024). Regarding Claim 5, Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , does not explicitly teach that the composite film has a porosity level in accordance with the instantly claimed range. However, Huang teaches a composite battery separator (Abstract). Huang teaches that the composite battery separator comprises fiber layers on surfaces of an intermediate layer ([0026]). Huang teaches that the separator exhibits an overall porosity of about 30-90% by volume, thereby allowing for sufficient communication of lithium ions throughout the separator ([0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , such that it exhibits an overall porosity of about 30-90% by volume, as taught by Huang, given that such a porosity would help ensure for sufficient communication of lithium ions through the composite film. Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0294461) , and further in view o f Kishimoto et al . (6,528,205) and Kanamura et al. (US 2014/0329130) and Kim et al. (US 2017/0 2 22244). Regarding Claim s 10 -11 , Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described. Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , does not explicitly teach that the working electrolyte is one of the instantly claimed types of electrolytes. However, Kim teaches a lithium battery separator (Abstract, [0012], [0015]). Kim teaches that the separator comprises a separator membrane which is impregnated with a solid electrolyte ([0015]). Specifically , Kim teaches that the solid electrolyte includes inorganic solid electrolyte particles which are, for example, oxide type, sulfide type, phosphate type, and lithium phosphorous oxynitride . Kim teaches that a solid electrolyte avoids the issue of liquid electrolyte leakage, and also that a solid electrolyte exhibits lithium ion conductivity while maintaining a freestanding shape at room temperature ([0008], [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would impregnate the composite film of Feng, as modified by Kishimoto and Kanamura , with a working electrolyte which is an inorganic solid electrolyte including inorganic solid electrolyte particles of oxide type, sulfide type, phosphate type, or lithium phosphorous oxynitride, as taught by Kim, given that solid electrolytes avoid the issue of liquid electrolyte leakage, and also given that a solid electrolyte exhibits lithium ion conductivity while maintaining a freestanding shape at room temperature. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM EST M-F . 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728