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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 13-14 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a separator comprising a substrate and a polymer layer claimed in claim 14, comprising a liquid-retaining polymer comprising: an ester polymer claimed in claims 9-10, comprising a building block represented by formula (CI)
PNG
media_image1.png
158
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R31-R33 = H and R34 =unsubstituted C1 alkyl group, specifically poly(vinyl acetate)
PNG
media_image2.png
281
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
n and further comprising:a bonding polymer as claimed in claim 3, comprising a polyacrylate
PNG
media_image3.png
221
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and an ether polymer as claimed in claims 7-8, comprising a building block represented by formula (BII)
PNG
media_image4.png
96
109
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R24-R26 = H and R27 = an unsubstituted C2 ether group, specifically poly(ethyl vinyl ether)
PNG
media_image5.png
200
273
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 9-29-2025 and 12-1-2025 are acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a burden to search all the different possibilities for the polymer layer. This is not found persuasive because the polymer layer comprises:a) a liquid retaining polymer that comprises: i) a fluoropolymer as claimed in claim 4-6 or ii) an ester polymer as claimed in 9-10 or iii) an aldehyde-ketone polymer as claimed in claims 11-12; and iv) further comprises an ether polymer as claimed in claim 7-8;ANDb) further comprises a bonding polymer as claimed in claim 3. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-6, 11-12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9-29-2025 and 12-1-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
· IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the bonding force of the separator in a range from 10 N/m to 30 N/m, does not reasonably provide enablement for a bonding force of the separator is greater than or equal to 10 N/m in which an upper range is not claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims [any bonding force amount above 10 N/m];
The nature of the invention [[0008], [0079] and Table 1 teaches having a bonding force in a range of 10-30 N/m];
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor [[0008], [0079] and Table 1 teaches having a bonding force in a range of 10-30 N/m];
The existence of working examples [[0008], [0079] and Table 1 teaches having a bonding force in a range of 10-30 N/m]; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim(s) of a bonding force of the separator is greater than or equal to 10 N/m encompasses any bonding force value above 10 N/m. Thus, the disclosed guidance proved in the specification does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim(s).
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13-14 and 16-19 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. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what side of separator body is the polymer layer comprising a liquid-retaining polymer is positioned on in regard to the positive electrode versus the negative electrode. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear if the mass of the liquid-retaining polymer is referring to “a first substance” or not. If not, then it is unclear what the method steps are referring to. Claim 1 is rejected because there does not seem to be antecedent basis for the phrase “the electrode plates”. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what is a “rail tensile testing machine” because this machine is not described in the specification but only cites the machine. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear how the bonding force can result because liquid-retaining polymers are not cited in the claim to fulfill the bonding force range claimed in claims 1-2 and/or does not contain a bonding polymer as claimed in claim 3. Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is objected to because the claim should cite “the bonding polymer is selected from the group consisting of at least one or more of epoxy resins,…and polyvinyl acetates (VAE emulsions)” because of the use of “and”. Claim 7 is objected to because it is unclear how a polymer further comprises another polymer. The Examiner stated that this should be “further” but after consideration should this claim be instead “wherein the liquid-retaining polymer is an ether polymer”. Claim 14 is objected to because it is unclear what side of the substrate/polymer layer is positioned in regard to the positive electrode plate versus the negative electrode plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (CN 110993859, machine translation) teaches an improved structure of a polymer coating membrane comprising a base film and the coating layer comprising modifying a gel polymer by grafting with a carboxyl group which improves the polymer coating membrane adhesive property and stability. Zhang et al. teaches that the gel polymer is composed of one or at least two kinds of copolymers or mixtures of polyvinylidene fluorine, polyurethane, polyethylene oxide, polypropylene oxide, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylamide, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl pyrrolidone or poly-acrylic acid tetraethylene glycol ester. Zhang et al. teaches that the coating slurry comprises the surface crafted polymer gel, a bonding agent comprising polyethylene oxide, polymethyl methacrylate, acrylic and acrylic ester [teaching claim 3] and de-ionized water. Zhang et al. teaches that the base film is a polyolefin membrane [teaching a separator body]. Zhang et al. teaches that the drying temperature is 40-80° C. Zhang et al. teaches in [Table 1, 0071], that in project 1, the peel strength 26 N/m and in project 2, the peel strength was 87 N/m [teaches claim 2].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm 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, 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights