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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 January 2024, 14 November 2025, and 17 August 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20180065105, hereinafter, Song).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a multilayer polymer membrane with up to 100 layers, including sorbent materials (¶ 8). In such a multilayer membrane, the outer layer on each side correspond to the claimed first and second substrate layers, and an adjacent internal layer with sorbent water scavenging material can correspond to the claimed water scavenging layer disposed on at least one surface of the substrate layers and another internal layer with sorbent acid scavenging material can correspond to the acid scavenging layer disposed between the substrate layers.
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches the multilayer polymer membrane of claim 1, wherein the percentage of sorbent material in a layer can be anywhere from 5 wt% to 90 wt% (¶ 31). By choosing the acid scavenging material to be 20 wt% and the water scavenging material to be 60 wt%, the claimed ratio of 1 to 3 acid scavenging material to water scavenging material can be met, and further if the water scavenging material wt% is instead 30%, the ratio of 1 to 1.5 can be met.
Regarding claims 4-6, Song teaches the multilayer polymer membrane of claim 1, wherein the water scavenging material comprises a molecular sieve, satisfying the condition of claim 4 of comprising either a molecular sieve or a super absorbent resin. Song also specifically teaches SBA-15 as an example, satisfying the condition of claim 6 of comprising SBA-15, TS-1, or one of the listed super absorbent resins. Song also categorizes SBA-15 as a mesoporous silicate (¶ 52), which are stated to have a pore size of 2 nm to 50 nm (¶ 23), substantially overlapping the claimed pore size range of 0.3 nm to 50 nm, and further overlaps 0.5 nm to 15 nm, satisfying the second condition of claim 5 relating to pore sizes.
Regarding claim 8-9, Song teaches the multilayer polymer membrane of claim 1, including lithium carbonate as an inorganic sorbent material (¶ 52), satisfying the condition of claim 8 of comprises at least one of an inorganic alkaline lithium salt and an organic compound, and the condition of claim 9, wherein the inorganic alkaline lithium salt comprises at least lithium carbonate or lithium bicarbonate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as evidenced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 11125, Lithium Carbonate).
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches the multilayer polymer membrane of claim 1, including the acid scavenging material lithium carbonate, but does not explicitly mention a pH. The National Center for Biotechnology Information states that the pH for lithium carbonate dissolved in water is 11.2, which is within the claimed range of 7 to 11.5 pH.
Claim 1-2, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekala (US 20040248012).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Pekala teaches a separator with multi-layer geometry, with an example being two PP films as substrate layers adjacent a PE film as the functional layer (¶ 26). Pekala also teaches that the second polyolefin, corresponding to the PE film, can include water scavenging or acid scavenging reactive functional groups (Abstract). While Pekala only discloses a single type of functional group present at a time, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to include both, because Pekala teaches that the presence of water molecules and certain acids such as hydrofluoric acid in lithium and lithium ion batteries is detrimental to battery performance (¶ 7) and would therefore try to include both functional groups to remove both water and acid instead of just one if possible. This functional layer would be disposed between the two substrate PP layers and would thus be on at least one surface of one of the substrate layers. Pekala also discloses that the entire multilayer separator would fall between 8 µm and 50 µm, which would also mean that the functional layer alone would satisfy the claimed condition of having a thickness between 4 µm and 50 µm (¶ 26).
Regarding claim 10, Pekala teaches the multi-layer battery separator of claim 1 in a secondary battery with a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and electrolyte (¶ 27).
Regarding claims 11-13, Pekala teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, but does not teach the ratio of ppm between the content of water based on the total mass of the electrode plates and the content of water scavenging material in the multi-layer separator based on the total mass of the separator, nor the ratio of ppm between the pH of the acid scavenging material, content of acid, and acid scavenging material in the battery based on the total mass of the electrolyte.
However, Pekala does teach that the presence of water molecules and certain acids such as hydrofluoric acid in lithium and lithium-ion batteries is detrimental to battery performance (¶ 7). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include both the water scavenging material and acid scavenging material in the separator, and to further optimize the amount of water scavenging and acid scavenging material in the separator of the secondary battery to remove as much of the detrimental water and hydrofluoric acid to protect the battery without negatively impacting the performance of the battery. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to arrive at applicant’s claimed values based on the teachings of the art and routine experimentation, absent the showing of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Pekala teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, and the use of lithium-ion batteries in many electrical devices such as cell phones, portable computers, and camcorders (¶ 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights