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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/27/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 5/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (US 20090067119 A1) in view of Liao et al. (US 20180358597 A1) on claims 1-4 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20200335750 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20250158220 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Iwata discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator (abstract) comprising:
a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer (par. 12) (equivalent to a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery functional layer); and
a polyolefin porous film (par. 12) (equivalent to a polyolefin base material),
the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer and the polyolefin porous film being formed on top of each other (par. 12), wherein
the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer contains a filler (par. 56),
the filler has a preferable average particle diameter (D50) of 0.05 μm or more and 5 μm or less (par. 61), and the porous layer contains 40%-99% by volume of the filler (par. 63). (It follows that the filler has a particle diameter of not less than 0.1 µm has a volume fraction of approximately 20 % by volume in the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery porous layer when the porous layer contains 40% of filler that has the average particle diameter (D50) of 0.1 μm). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Iwata does not specifically disclose a ratio L2/L1 of a contact length between the polyolefin base material and the filler that has a particle diameter of not less than 0.1 µm (L2) to a length of an interface between the polyolefin base material and the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery functional layer (L1) is not less than 0.5% and not more than 7%. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the ratio of L2/L1, are inherent, given that the filler particle diameter, amount of the filler in the porous layer, and the dispersing process disclosed by Iwata and the present application are similar. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
In addition, Lee et al. disclose a method for manufacturing a separator dispersing inorganic particles homogeneously in a slurry. Lee et al. recognize as the dispersibility of inorganic particles (equivalent to fillers) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the dispersion process (par. 65). High pressure homogenizer can disperse fine particles uniformly in a slurry (par. 65-66). As the ratio of L2/L1 is decreased with the dispersibility of inorganic particles increasing, the precise ratio of L2/L1 would have been considered an effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of L2/L1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of L2/L1 in Iwata to obtain the desired dispersibility of the fillers as taught by Lee et al. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claims 2-4: Iwata discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode (par. 106);
a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator recited in claim 1; and
a negative electrode (par. 114),
the positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery laminated separator, and the negative electrode being formed on top of each other in this order (par. 124).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Katayama and Liao do not teach the claimed contact length /interface length ratio (L2/L1) of 0.5%-7% and there is no motivation to combine Katayama and Liao together.
Unexpected results are demonstrated in the Table 2 in the instant case. C2 to C4 confirms the importance of the upper limit of not more than 7% on this ratio, and C1 and C5 demonstrates the importance of the lower limit of not less than 0.5% on this ratio.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot. Katayama and Liao references are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Table 2 does not show the results when the content of fillers not less than 0.1 µm and the ratio L2/L1 are individually outside the claimed range while the other parameter is within the claimed range. The comparative laminated separators C1 and C5 show lower air permeability when the content of fillers not less than 0.1 µm is 0% and the ratio L2/L1 is 0%. It is unclear whether the low air permeability is due to the 0% filler content of less than 0.1 µm, the 0% ratio of L2/L1, or both. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
Conclusion
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights