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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for preparing a separator, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 22nd, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 drawn to a separator for a battery in the reply filed on June 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “when 10% is used as a first target ratio”, “when 50% is used as the first target ratio”, and “when 90% is used as the first target ratio”. Its unclear how the phrase, “first target ratio” is limiting L10, L50, or L90 or even what different quantities L10, L50, and L90 have in relation to one another. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3” and “L10 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 10% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 10% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L10 can exactly correspond to when 10% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3, and 4≤L90/L50≥1.3” and “L50 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 50% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 50% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L50 can exactly correspond to when 50% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3, and 4≤L90/L50≥1.3” and “L90 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 90% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 90% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L90 can exactly correspond to when 90% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “a same second target ratio”, and “a second target ratio”. Its unclear if these are referencing the same ratio or different ratios. Its also unclear if there is a first ratio present. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “a same second target ratio”, and “a second target ratio”. Its unclear how the phrase, “second target ratio” is limiting different length description values for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in different material layers or even what different quantities of these layers have in relation to one another. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “when 10% is used as a first target ratio”, “when 50% is used as the first target ratio”, and “when 90% is used as the first target ratio”. Its unclear how the phrase, “first target ratio” is limiting L10, L50, or L90 or even what different quantities L10, L50, and L90 have in relation to one another. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3” and “L10 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 10% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 10% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L10 can exactly correspond to when 10% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3, and 4≤L90/L50≥1.3” and “L50 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 50% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 50% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L50 can exactly correspond to when 50% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “5≥L50/L10≥1.3, and 4≤L90/L50≥1.3” and “L90 represents a length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the coating structure when 90% is used as a first target ratio”. The phrasing, “when 90% is used as a first target ratio” causes these passages to be indefinite. For example, its unclear what L90 can exactly correspond to when 90% is not used as a first target ratio. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a same second target ratio”, and “a second target ratio”. Its unclear if these are referencing the same ratio or different ratios. Its also unclear if there is a first ratio present. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a same second target ratio”, and “a second target ratio”. Its unclear how the phrase, “second target ratio” is limiting different length description values for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in different material layers or even what different quantities of these layers have in relation to one another. Appropriate action is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0237731 A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US 2019/0198837 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Park et al. discloses a separator for a battery comprising a base film and a coating structure (Paragraph 0072 – separator that comprises a porous film), wherein the coating structure comprises a plurality of material layers (See Fig. 2D, although this isn’t exhaustive and other embodiments may apply), and each material layer contains one-dimensional nanomaterials (Paragraph 0066), that may have average sizes of one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers that are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from the base film (Paragraph 0066 – Fig. 2D, bottom 4c may comprise second cellulose nanofibers alone as small-diameter fibers of diameters of 50 nm or less, 4a may include first cellulose nanofibers having an average diameter of about 100 nm or greater, top 4c may comprise large-diameter fibers 2 microns or greater or first cellulose fibers with an average diameter of 100 nm or greater), its not explicitly disclosed that it’s the “length” of the one-dimensional nanomaterials that are decreased layer by layer.
Yushin et al. discloses that average lengths of one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from a base film (Fig. 8F & Paragraph 0156). Yushin et al. discloses that it may be advantageous to combine small fibers of different sizes in the membrane by having the lengths of the small fibers vary in order to achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties and good and reliable separation and that small fibers may be combined with larger fibers in order to achieve a good combination of mechanical and transport properties in a membrane (Paragraph 0051). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average lengths of the one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from the base film for the advantages of being able to achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties and good and reliable separation and that small fibers may be combined with larger fibers in order to achieve a good combination of mechanical and transport properties in a membrane.
In view of Claims 2-3, as best understood by the Examiner, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Park et al. discloses that the small nanofibers in the bottom layer of 4c Fig. 2D can have a length of 100-300 nm when the diameter is 10-30 nm and the aspect ratio is 10 (Paragraph 0040). Park et al. does not explicitly provide guidance on what the lengths of the first cellulose nanofibers in layer 4a and in top layer 4c. Yushin et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that these layers have average lengths that are decreased layer by layer.
Yushin et al. discloses that the suitable length of individual small fibers may range from 50-500 nm and that this corresponds to fibers with diameters of 2 nm to 1 micron (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select these as suitable lengths of the individual fibers of Park et al. layers 4a and in top layer 4c, and arrive at length values of L50 of 250-400 nm and length value of L90 of 350-500 nm as Yushin et al. discloses that this can achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties.
In regards to the specific “length description values” at specific target ratios, the claim doesn’t require these percentages per se, and its also unclear what the percentage of a target ratio w/ unknown values further limits the claim set.
In view of Claim 4, as best understood by the Examiner, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Park et al. discloses that the small nanofibers in the bottom layer of 4c Fig. 2D can have a length of 100-300 nm when the diameter is 10-30 nm and the aspect ratio is 10 (Paragraph 0040). Park et al. does not explicitly provide guidance on what the lengths of the first cellulose nanofibers in layer 4a and in top layer 4c. Yushin et al. discloses that the suitable length of individual small fibers may range from 50-500 nm and that this corresponds to fibers with diameters of 2 nm to 1 micron (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select these as suitable lengths of the individual fibers of Park et al. layers 4a and in top layer 4c, and arrive at length values of L50 of 250-400 nm and length value of L90 of 350-500 nm as Yushin et al. discloses that this can achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties.
Yushin et al. discloses that small fibers within the range taught by modified Park can be utilized in the range of 10-100 wt. % (Paragraph 0051). In regards to the limitation that, “are formed with respect to a same second target ratio”, “so that a ratio of a number accumulated to the corresponding one-dimensional nanomaterial to a total number of the one-dimensional nanomaterials in each material layer reaches the second target ratio which is not 50%; the length description values for the one dimensional nanomaterial in the material layers are decreased gradually with respect to the same second target ratio in the direction away from the base film; and further, the second target ratio is in a range of 5%-40%, or in a range of 60%-99%”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Yushin et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Thus modified Park et al. discloses that the length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in each material indicates that they have a length, and that the length description values for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the material layers are decreased gradually with respect to a ratio in a direction away from the base film.
In view of Claim 5, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Park et al. teaches that one-dimensional nanomaterials comprise at least nanocellulose (Paragraph 0037), aramid nanofibers and polyimide nanofibers (Paragraph 0038).
In view of Claim 6, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Yushin et al. teaches that in a first material layer and a second material layer that are adjacent to each other that gaps between one dimensional nanomaterials in the first material are partially filled with one-dimensional nanomaterials in the second material layer (Fig. 8F, entanglement of fibers 820F and 822F results in gaps between each other – Paragraph 0156). Park et al. is relied upon the specific ordering of the plurality of material layers including the first material layer located at one side of the second material layer facing the base film (Fig. 2D, 4c bottom & top and 4a).
In view of Claim 7, Park et al. discloses a battery (Fig. 3 & Paragraph 0017) comprising a separator the separator comprising a base film and a coating structure (Paragraph 0072 – separator that comprises a porous film), wherein the coating structure comprises a plurality of material layers (See Fig. 2D, although this isn’t exhaustive and other embodiments may apply), and each material layer contains one-dimensional nanomaterials (Paragraph 0066), that may have average sizes of one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers that are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from the base film (Paragraph 0066 – Fig. 2D, bottom 4c may comprise second cellulose nanofibers alone as small-diameter fibers of diameters of 50 nm or less, 4a may include first cellulose nanofibers having an average diameter of about 100 nm or greater, top 4c may comprise large-diameter fibers 2 microns or greater or first cellulose fibers with an average diameter of 100 nm or greater), its not explicitly disclosed that it’s the “length” of the one-dimensional nanomaterials that are decreased layer by layer.
Yushin et al. discloses that average lengths of one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from a base film (Fig. 8F & Paragraph 0156). Yushin et al. discloses that it may be advantageous to combine small fibers of different sizes in the membrane by having the lengths of the small fibers vary in order to achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties and good and reliable separation and that small fibers may be combined with larger fibers in order to achieve a good combination of mechanical and transport properties in a membrane (Paragraph 0051). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average lengths of the one-dimensional nanomaterials in respective material layers are decreased layer by layer in a direction away from the base film for the advantages of being able to achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties and good and reliable separation and that small fibers may be combined with larger fibers in order to achieve a good combination of mechanical and transport properties in a membrane.
In view of Claims 8-9, as best understood by the Examiner, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Park et al. discloses that the small nanofibers in the bottom layer of 4c Fig. 2D can have a length of 100-300 nm when the diameter is 10-30 nm and the aspect ratio is 10 (Paragraph 0040). Park et al. does not explicitly provide guidance on what the lengths of the first cellulose nanofibers in layer 4a and in top layer 4c. Yushin et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that these layers have average lengths that are decreased layer by layer.
Yushin et al. discloses that the suitable length of individual small fibers may range from 50-500 nm and that this corresponds to fibers with diameters of 2 nm to 1 micron (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select these as suitable lengths of the individual fibers of Park et al. layers 4a and in top layer 4c, and arrive at length values of L50 of 250-400 nm and length value of L90 of 350-500 nm as Yushin et al. discloses that this can achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties.
In regards to the specific “length description values” at specific target ratios, the claim doesn’t require these percentages per se, and its also unclear what the percentage of a target ratio w/ unknown values further limits the claim set.
In view of Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Park et al. discloses that the small nanofibers in the bottom layer of 4c Fig. 2D can have a length of 100-300 nm when the diameter is 10-30 nm and the aspect ratio is 10 (Paragraph 0040). Park et al. does not explicitly provide guidance on what the lengths of the first cellulose nanofibers in layer 4a and in top layer 4c. Yushin et al. discloses that the suitable length of individual small fibers may range from 50-500 nm and that this corresponds to fibers with diameters of 2 nm to 1 micron (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select these as suitable lengths of the individual fibers of Park et al. layers 4a and in top layer 4c, and arrive at length values of L50 of 250-400 nm and length value of L90 of 350-500 nm as Yushin et al. discloses that this can achieve a combination of good mechanical properties, good transport properties.
Yushin et al. discloses that small fibers within the range taught by modified Park can be utilized in the range of 10-100 wt. % (Paragraph 0051). In regards to the limitation that, “are formed with respect to a same second target ratio”, “so that a ratio of a number accumulated to the corresponding one-dimensional nanomaterial to a total number of the one-dimensional nanomaterials in each material layer reaches the second target ratio which is not 50%; the length description values for the one dimensional nanomaterial in the material layers are decreased gradually with respect to the same second target ratio in the direction away from the base film; and further, the second target ratio is in a range of 5%-40%, or in a range of 60%-99%”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Yushin et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Thus modified Park et al. discloses that the length description value for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in each material indicates that they have a length, and that the length description values for the one-dimensional nanomaterials in the material layers are decreased gradually with respect to a ratio in a direction away from the base film.
In view of Claim 11, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Park et al. teaches that one-dimensional nanomaterials comprise at least nanocellulose (Paragraph 0037), aramid nanofibers and polyimide nanofibers (Paragraph 0038).
In view of Claim 12, Park et al. and Yushin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Yushin et al. teaches that in a first material layer and a second material layer that are adjacent to each other that gaps between one dimensional nanomaterials in the first material are partially filled with one-dimensional nanomaterials in the second material layer (Fig. 8F, entanglement of fibers 820F and 822F results in gaps between each other – Paragraph 0156). Park et al. is relied upon the specific ordering of the plurality of material layers including the first material layer located at one side of the second material layer facing the base film (Fig. 2D, 4c bottom & top and 4a).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. (US 2020/0321583 A1);
Guo et al. (US 2021/0376304 A1); and
Hu et al. (US 2020/0321578 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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 P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights