LITHIUM ION BATTERY AND SEPARATOR THEREOF
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 9/15/2026:
Claim 1 has been amended; claim 10 has been canceled. Claim 11 has been added. No new matter has been entered.
Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Kim discloses a separator for a secondary battery. See, e.g., Kim, Abstract. According to the description throughout the entire disclosure, especially that in paragraph [0037] in connection with, e.g., FIG. 3, Kim's "step portion (202a)" refers to only the part protruding beyond the base portion (202b) in the thickness direction. Further, Kim specifically discloses that the height d2 of the step portion 202a is 5% to 50% or 5% to 30% or 20% to 50% or 15% to 40% of the thickness d3 of the base portion. Kim translation, [0037] and FIG. 3. That is, in Kim, the thickness of the step portion d2 is smaller than the thickness of the base portion d3.
As reference, the description in Kim regarding the step portion and the Office's interpretation are shown in the annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
164
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To clarify the difference from Kim, Applicant has amended claim 1 to specify that "the edge portion [is] positioned on a surface of the main body," (emphasis added). With this clarification, Kim cannot simultaneously satisfy the claimed positional relationship and thickness relationship between the edge portion and the main body. That is, with the Office's interpretation, the alleged edge portion is not positioned on a surface of the main body; while on the other hand, with Kim's own description, the thickness of the step portion is not greater than the thickness of the base portion.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. MPEP 2111 discloses that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the present case, the amendment does not specify which surface of the main body. According to the Office’s interpretation (as illustrated above), the surface can be any surface of the main body (See annotated figure below.).
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Figure from Kim
Further, the interpretation is consistent with the specification of present application. Paragraph 0048 from the PG-PUB discloses the edge and main portions can be integrally formed or separate. If they are separate, then the Office’s interpretation does read on the newly added claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2016-0050734 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a separator (Abstract; paragraph 0023; Figs. 3-4), comprising:
a base film (Figs. 3 and 4, element 201 discloses a porous separation membrane substrate.); and
a coating covering a surface of the base film (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202 disclose an organic/inorganic composite porous coating layer.);
wherein the coating comprises a main body (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202b disclose a base portion.) and an edge portion arranged on the periphery of the main body (Figs. 3 and 4, element 202a disclose a step portion.), the edge portion being positioned on a surface of the main body (See annotated Fig. below.) and having a greater thickness than the main body (Paragraph 0037 discloses the thickness of the step portion, d1, is greater than the thickness of the base portion, d3.) , and the edge portion being provided with several patterns arranged at intervals (Figs. 5-7 disclose a binder layer, element 203a, arranged on the step portion, element 202a, comprising a series of patterns.).
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Kim
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the edge portion to a thickness of the main body ranges from 1.2 to 1.6; wherein the thickness of the edge portion ranges from 4 μm to 8 μm, and the thickness of the main body ranges from 3 μm to 5 μm (Paragraphs 0036-0037; Fig. 3 disclose the thickness of the base portion, element 202b, is 2-30 µm which is shown by d3 which is within the claimed range. Paragraph 0037 discloses the thickness of d2, the edge portion 202a, is 5-50% of the thickness, d3, of the base portion which yields 0.1-15 µm. Therefore, the entire thickness of the edge portion d1=d2+d3 or 2.1-45 µm which is also within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a width of the edge portion to a width of the main body ranges from 0.17 to 0.33 (Paragraph 0040 discloses 10-30%.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the edge portion comprises a first edge portion and a second edge portion, the first edge portion and the second edge portion being respectively arranged on two sides of the main body (See annotated Fig. 3 below.),
PNG
image4.png
100
100
image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kim
and the first edge portion and/or the second edge portion being provided with the several patterns arranged at intervals (Figs. 5-7 disclose a binder layer, element 203a, arranged on the step portion, element 202a, comprising a series of patterns.).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the pattern is at least one of a stripe-shaped pattern, a grid-shaped pattern and a pit-shaped pattern (Fig. 8 discloses a grid-shaped pattern.).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1, wherein the base film comprises a first surface and a second surface, and the coating covers the first surface and/or the second surface (Fig. 3 discloses the base film, element 201, having the coatings, element 202, on both surfaces of the base film.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses a lithium ion battery (Paragraph 0046), comprising: a positive electrode plate; a negative electrode plate; and the separator of claim 1 arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (Paragraph 0044 discloses an electrode assembly comprising a cathode, an anode, and the aforementioned separator interposed between the cathode and the anode.).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al. (KR 2016-0050734 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ping et al. (CN 111564593 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teach the separator according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a width of the edge portion ranges from 10 mm to 20 mm, and a width of the main body ranges from 60 mm to 120 mm.
Ping et al. teach a width of the edge portion ranges from 10 mm to 20 mm (Paragraph 0066; Fig. 1, element d1 discloses the width of an adhesive portion, element 200, is 2-15 mm.), and a width of the main body ranges from 60 mm to 120 mm (Paragraph 0066; Fig. 1, element d1 discloses the width of a porous base membrane, element 100, is 50-1200 mm.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Ping in order to bear enough tension, pressure and vibration in the processes of assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, while teaching patterns arranged at intervals on the edge portion, does not disclose the patterns being made of the same material as the coating. Modifying the prior art with this limitation would actually teach away from the intended use and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 October 2nd, 2026
Prosecution Insights