DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/2025.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch USPA 2015/0093627 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Busch discloses a composite separator for gas separation (Abstract), the composite separator comprising: a support (Abstract: porous film) and a selective layer disposed on one surface of the support (Abstract and paragraph 4: layers that absorb the electrolyte; paragraph 51: additional porous layers also read on the claimed selective layer), wherein the support includes a porous polyethylene film (paragraph 47), and the support has a surface roughness of 100 nm or less (paragraph 55), a surface median pore diameter of 300 nm or less (paragraph 53).
Busch does not disclose a tensile strength in a machine direction (MD) and a transverse direction (TD) of 10 MPa or more. However, Busch discloses that a high mechanical strength is desired (paragraph 7), and the film has excellent strength (paragraph 24). Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the tensile strength in the machine and transverse directions is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal durability. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Busch discloses that the permeability has a Gurley value of less than 1000 s, but does not disclose a permeability of 850 sec/100 cc or less. 850 sec/100 cc falls within the range of less than 1000 s. Furthermore, if the disclosed range of Busch is not deemed to anticipate the claimed range, nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the permeability is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal separation. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Busch discloses that the support has a surface roughness of 50 nm or less (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 4, Busch discloses that the support has a thickness ranging from 5 μm to 100 μm (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 5, Busch discloses that the selective layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 500 nm (paragraph 51: one of the “further porous layer” reads on the claimed selective layer).
Regarding claim 6, Busch discloses a middle layer disposed between the selective layer and the support (paragraph 51: one of the “further porous layers” can be considered the claimed selective layer and another can be considered the claimed middle layer).
Regarding claim 7, Busch discloses a protective layer disposed on the selective layer (paragraph 51: one of the “further porous layers” can be considered the claimed selective layer and another can be considered the claimed protective layer).
Regarding claim 8, Busch discloses that the composite separator has a thickness of 150 μm or less (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 9, Busch does not disclose that the composite separator has a specific surface area of the selective layer according to the following Equation 1 of 10,000 m2/m3 or more: [Equation 1] Specific surface area of selective layer = surface area of selective layer (m2) / volume of composite separator (m3). Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the specific surface area of the selective layer is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal separation, as is known in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776