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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended to narrow the claims.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. IDS statements of previous office actions have already been considered.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (JP 2018147578 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0139] separator for a non-aqueous battery) functional layer comprising a first filler and a second filler, wherein the first filler having an average particle diameter of not more than 0.03 micrometers, and the second filler having an average particle diameter of not less than 2 micrometers ([0033] thermoplastic layer; thermoplastic layer comprises first inorganic particles having an average particle side of 200 nm or more and 2000 nm or less that reads as the second filler having a size of 2 micrometers and a second inorganic particle being 200 nm or less, reading as the first filler having a particle that can be less than 0.03 micrometers).
Wherein an average primary particle diameter of the filler for the first and second filler overlaps with that of the claimed invention and thus renders obvious the claim limitations of claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakazawa further discloses a battery separator comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery functional layer recited in claim 1 (Abstract separator for power storage device, see rejection of claim 1), and
A polyolefin base material ([0016-0017] polyolefin base material),
The nonaqueous electrolyte secondary functional layer and the polyolefin base material being formed on top of each other ([0033] thermoplastic layer is formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Nakazawa further discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising:
A positive electrode ([0010] electrode body having a positive electrode);
A nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator recited in claim 2 ([0010] see rejection of claim 2; electrode body having a separator); and
A negative electrode ([0010] electrode body having a negative electrode),
The positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator, and the negative electrode being formed on top of each other in this order ([0010,0139]).
Regarding claims 4-6, Nakazawa discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1-3. Nakazawa discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the claim limitations of claims 1-3 (Nakazawa nonaqueous secondary battery, see rejections of claims 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record as Kobayashi teaches away from the filler material having a particle diameter greater than 1.5 micrometers. This argument is noted, however, the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsukuda (JP 2010231957-as cited in the IDS)- discloses a separator integrated electrode and is analogous with the instant invention as having a separator having a first and second inorganic material having various sizes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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 (571)270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights