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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/6/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 currently recites “… the intra-particles pores have a radius …” which should recite “the intra-particle pores” as recited in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 1,2, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frischmann (US20190348657A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frischmann discloses a lithium-metal battery electrode-supported separator (i.e., separator 140 supporting positive electrode 110; Fig 1) comprising:
an electrically conductive substrate (positive electrode 110; [0058]); and
a separator coated on the substrate (separator 140 disposed on the positive electrode 110; [0079-0088])
Frischmann further discloses that in some embodiments, the membrane layer may comprise a zeolite that define intra-particle pores (e.g., microporous silicalite; [0083]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected zeolite particles in the membrane layer with a reasonable expectation to form a membrane layer having chemical and electrochemical stability, wettability, and thermal stability [0069].
Regarding claim 2, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the separator is 27 µm [0136] (i.e., 2µm-thick membrane film and 25µm-thick CELGARD membrane support), which falls within the claimed thickness range of “20 μm to 60 μm”.
Regarding claim 5, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 1, wherein the intra-particles have a pore size ranging from 3Å (i.e., 0.3nm) to 1 nm [0083], which closely encompasses the claimed range of “0.5 nm to 0.8 nm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the encompassed intra-particles pore size with a reasonable expectation to provide surface area in the zeolite particles to improve electrolyte wettability and ion transport [0087].
Regarding claim 6, Frischman discloses the separator of claim 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage when zeolite particles with intra-particle pores are stacked, it would necessarily form pores between the zeolite particles (i.e., inter-particle pores between the zeolite particles, as claimed). Examiner also notes that the “inter-particle pore” is interpreted as the pores of the membrane layer, as the pore of the membrane layer would have formed due to having gaps between the zeolite particles.
Regarding claims 7-9, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 6, comprising inter-particle pores, wherein the “inter-particle pore” is interpreted as the pores of the membrane layer, as the pore of the membrane layer would have formed due to having gaps between the zeolite particles.
Frischmann does not expressly disclose an inter-particle pore radius of “100 nm to 700 nm” {claim 7}, “200 nm to 600nm” {claim 8}, and “300nm to 500nm” {claim 9}.
However, Frischmann discloses wherein the pore size (note: equivalent to “diameter” according to [0032]) of the membrane support is between about 0.01-5 micrometers [0064], which is at least 3, 5, 10, 100, or even 200 times greater than the pore size of the membrane layer [0064] (i.e., the pore diameter of the membrane layer is 0.00005-1.7 µm, equivalent to 0.05nm-1700nm; i.e., pore radius of 0.025nm-850nm), wherein the disclosed pore radius range encompasses the claimed ranges of “100 nm to 700 nm” {claim 7}, “200 nm to 600nm” {claim 8}, and “300nm to 500nm” {claim 9}.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the encompassed ranges of the pore radius, as Frischmann discloses that such pore size selectively allows some materials of the electrolyte to pass through while blocking others [0064].
Regarding claim 10, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises nickel, manganese, and cobalt oxide (e.g., NMC 622; [0058] [0142]).
Regarding claim 11, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 1, wherein the zeolite comprises silicalite [0083].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frischmann (US20190348657A1)., in view of Shekarian (Preparation of 4A zeolite coated polypropylene membrane for lithium-ion batteries separator; IDS cited 04/17/2024, Cite No 27).
Regarding claims 3-4, Frischmann discloses the separator of claim 1, but does not disclose an average diameter of the zeolite particles, and further does not disclose wherein an average diameter of the zeolite particles is in a range of 0.5 μm to 3.5 μm {claim 3} and in a range of 1 μm to 3 μm {claim 4} as claimed.
In this regard, Shekarian teaches a zeolite coated polypropylene membrane for lithium-ion batteries separator, wherein the zeolite particles are in size range of 2-10 μm (see Results and Discussion section, paragraph 2 in pg 4), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 μm to 3.5 μm {claim 3} and in a range of 1 μm to 3 μm {claim 4} as claimed. Shekarian further teaches such zeolite particles provide a route for a Li+ cations for easier transfer across the separator and contribute to high electrolyte uptake and wettability, leading to increased ion conductivities (see Results and discussion section and section 2.1 in pg 4 - Shekarian).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used zeolite particles in the overlapping diameter ranges, with a reasonable expectation to improve Li+ cation transfer across the separator to improve electrolyte uptake and wettability, thereby improving ion conductivities (Results and discussion section and section 2.1 in pg 4 - Shekarian).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights