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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 6/20/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 25, 36 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers et al (US 20120070714 A1) in view of Suonsivu et al (US 20160126521 A1) and Zenczak (US 3450571 A).
Regarding claim 25, Chambers discloses a battery separator comprising a polyolefin membrane filled with a silica-based material [paragraph 0010, 0016, 0018, 0048, 0073, 0115]. Chambers remains silent about carbon/mineral coating on the separator. However, it is known in the art to utilize carbon coating on the separator for mechanically strengthening and stabilizing the separator surface as taught by Suonsivu [Abstract; paragraph 0035, 0037, 0047, 0104]. And Zenczak teaches coating a separator with mineral material [column 3, line 46-53; claim 1]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 36 and 43-44, Suonsivu teaches that both side of the separator is coated [paragraph 0048] and Zenczak teaches coating a separator with mineral material [column 3, line 46-53; claim 1]. Since both sides of the separator is coated, placing the positive or the negative plate at any side would be within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan and would be obvious.
8. Claim(s) 26-28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers et al (US 20120070714 A1) in view of Suonsivu et al (US 20160126521 A1) and Zenczak (US 3450571 A) as applied in claim 25 and further in view of Bendale et al (US 20030086238 A1).
Regarding claims 26-28, Chambers/Suonsivu remains silent about the surface area of the carbon; however, Bendale teaches coating a current collector of an energy storage device with activated carbon powder and a binder wherein BET surface area of the activated carbon powders is on the order of 500 to 2500 m2/g in order to optimize both the "effectivity" and "utilization" of the carbon used [Abstract; paragraph 0015-0016, 0058, 0065]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, Bendale teaches that the carbon is activated carbon [paragraph 0015-0016].
9. Claim(s) 29-34 and 37-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers et al (US 20120070714 A1) in view of Suonsivu et al (US 20160126521 A1) and Zenczak (US 3450571 A) as applied in claims 25&36 and further in view of Bendale et al (US 20030086238 A1).
Regarding claims 29-34 and 37-42, Chambers/Suonsivu remains silent that the coating comprises surfactant/binder; however it is known in the art to utilize surfactant/binder in coating so that the internal resistance of the lithium secondary battery can be reduced as a result of swelling of the polymer, so that a reduction in battery performance can be suppressed as taught by Bendale. Bendale further teaches that the binder can be acrylate and acrylonitrile. Surfactants can be nonionic [Abstract; paragraph 0022-0023, 0159, 0237, 0310, 0526, 0530]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights