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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-18 are rejected.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20110183203 A1, “Du”) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20080269366 A1, “Shaffer”), Wen et al. (CN 115668620 A, “Wen”, machine translation is used herein for citation purposes), Cheng et al. (WO 2019086034 A1, “Cheng”), Wang et al. (In Situ Solidified Gel Polymer Electrolytes for Stable Solid−State Lithium Batteries at High Temperatures), and evidenced by Ebnesajjad et al. (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation - Technology, Applications and Manufacturing), Guo (Plastics: Annual Technical Conference, Volume 3: Special Areas - Characterization of a Poly(Ether - Block - Amide) Copolymer and its Significance for Polymer Processing Operations), and Wypych (Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition)).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a separator (see Abstract), comprising: a separator body; and a polymer layer arranged on at least one surface of the separator body (see [0012] “porous polymer composite layer”; see [0021] “separator membrane, preferably comprising one or more polymers” & “substrate may comprise a plurality of polymer layers”; see [0013] “substrate” & “poly ether ether ketone (PEEK)” & “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)” & “poly vinyl methyl ether (PVME)”). Regarding the limitation wherein a disc of the ether polymer with a thickness of 1-2 mm and a diameter of 25 mm is subjected to a dynamic frequency scanning test at (Tm+20) °C to obtain an elastic modulus G’- loss modulus G” curve, and the elastic modulus G’-loss modulus G” curve has a slope of K, wherein 1<K<10, and Tm °C represents the melting temperature of the ether polymer, and the ether polymer has a glass transition temperature of Tg in the unit of °C, where -65≤Tg≤30, Du does not explicitly disclose.
Shaffer teaches disk extruding (see [0211]) and “2.0 mm” & “thickness” & “sample is prepared by stacking 25.4 mm diameter round discs” which reads on 25 mm diameter (see [0280]) & “dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) is measured on compression molded disks formed in a hot press” which reads on disc of polymer (see [0293]) & FIG. 1 describes melting point (Degrees C)+ 20. Schaffer teaches in [0280] “preparation of sample using ASTM D 395 method” which describes a method known to a skilled artisan for preparation of samples.
Du and Shaffer are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery separator and gel-forming polymer electrolyte systems (see Shaffer [0260]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “2.0 mm” thickness and “25.4 mm diameter round discs” for DMA analysis, as suggested by Shaffer into the separator of Du because doing so is using a standard method of preparation as suggested by Shaffer (see [0280]).
Ebnesajjad provides evidence of dynamic mechanical analysis used to determine the elastic modulus (G’) and loss modulus (G”) of polymer material (see P43 describes “Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)” & “DMA method determines elastic modulus (or storage modulus, G’), viscous modulus (or loss modulus, G”), and damping coefficient (Tan Delta) as a function of temperature, frequency, or time” & “results are usually in the form of a graphical plot of G’, G” and Tan delta as a function of temperature or strain” which describes elastic modulus G’ – loss modulus G” curve).
Regarding the limitation and the elastic modulus G’-loss modulus G” curve has a slope of K, where 1<K<10, Du does not explicitly disclose, however, elastic modulus and loss modulus are properties of the polymer material.
Guo provides evidence slope of G’ and G” cure is positive (see FIG. 5 on P4248).
Wen teaches loss modulus G” and storage modulus G’ (see [n0074] “storage modulus G’ (A) of the polyolefin contained in the separator” & “loss modulus G” (B) of the polyolefin contained in the separator”) and teaches slope (see [n0259] “slope of about 2”).
Du and Wen are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separators for batteries (see Wen Abstract).
Wen teaches a range of 2, which lies within the claimed range of 1<K<10. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the polymer material as suggested by Du would have a slope of 2, as suggested by Wen because Wen teaches polymers generally have a theoretical slope of about 2 (see [n0259]).
Regarding the limitation and the ether polymer has a glass transition temperature of Tg in the unit of deg. C, where -65≤Tg≤30, Du does not explicitly disclose a value, however, glass transition temperature is a property of the polymer material.
Wypych provides evidence of ether polymer (PEO) has a glass transition temperature of -60 °C (see P412 “glass transition temperature °C calc. -60; -60 to -70). Wypych provides evidence of a range of -60 to -70 °C, which overlaps the claimed range of -65≤Tg≤30.
Regarding the limitation a sedimentation value of the ether polymer is measured as follows: the ether polymer is added to a first solvent at 70°C to form an ether polymer system; the ether polymer system is subjected to standing at 70°C for 8h, and after standing at 25°C for a time of ≥24h, the ether polymer system is filtered via a 200-mesh filter screen, with a first substance remained, wherein the ether polymer has a mass of q in a unit of g; the first substance has a mass of m in a unit of g; and the sedimentation value of the ether polymer, m/q, satisfies: 5≤m/q≤50, Du does not explicitly disclose, however, Du does disclose a gel electrolyte (see [0023]) and the above limitation is a method of measuring the sedimentation value which is a property of material. The specification of the instant application provides evidence on [0091] “first substance mainly includes a gel-state material formed by the polymer and the first solvent”.
Ma teaches process of making the gel electrolyte (see P3 “in situ thermal curing” & “the gel polymer electrolyte liquid precursor solutions were injected into the cell and direct in situ solidified at 60°C for 12 h to fully form PE-based gel polymer electrolytes in the battery”).
Du and Ma are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely gel polymer electrolytes (see Ma Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ma to include thermal curing and solidified for 12 hr into the separator of Du because doing so forms the gel polymer electrolyte, as suggested by Ma (see P3).
Cheng teaches in [34] on P12 “temperature of the at least one solvent may be controlled in a range of, for example, from 60 °C to 130 °C” to help the precursor to dissolve in at least one solvent quickly.
Du and Cheng are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery separators (see Cheng Title).
Cheng teaches a range of 60 °C to 130 °C, which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 70°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a temperature as suggested by Cheng 60 °C to 130 °C (see P12) because doing so helps the precursor to dissolve quickly as suggested by Cheng (see P12 [34]).
Regarding the limitation with a first substance remained, wherein the ether polymer has a mass of q in a unit of g; the first substance has a mass of m in a unit of g; and the sedimentation value of the ether polymer, m/q, satisfies: 5 ≤ m/q ≤ 50, Du does not explicitly disclose, however sedimentation value is a property of the polymer electrolyte. Du discloses in [0012] “titanium dioxide” & “preferably, the inorganic particles make up from 5% to 80% by weight of the ceramic composite layer”.
Ma teaches “poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (PEGMEA)” & “mass of initiator was 0.2% of PEGMEA” (see P2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that mass of 0.2% of PEGMEA as suggested by Ma (see P2) and inorganic particles of 5% by weight as disclosed by Du would describe a sedimentation value because m/q = (5/0.2) = 25 which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Du discloses the separator of claim 1. Du does not explicitly disclose 1<K≤5.
Wen teaches loss modulus G” and storage modulus G’ (see [n0074] “storage modulus G’ (A) of the polyolefin contained in the separator” & “loss modulus G” (B) of the polyolefin contained in the separator”) and teaches slope (see [n0259] “slope of about 2”).
Du and Wen are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separators for batteries (see Wen Abstract).
Wen teaches a range of 2, which lies within the claimed range of 1<K≤5. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the polymer material as suggested by Du would have a slope of 2, as suggested by Wen because Wen teaches polymers generally have a theoretical slope of about 2 (see [n0259]).
Regarding claim 3, Du discloses the separator of claim 1. Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the ether polymer has the glass transition temperature of Tg in the unit of °C, where -65 ≤Tg≤0, however, glass transition temperature is a property of the polymer material. Wypych provides evidence of ether polymer (PEO) has a glass transition temperature of -60 °C (see P412 “glass transition temperature °C calc. -60; -60 to -70). Wypych provides evidence of a range of -60 to -70 °C, which overlaps the claimed range of -65≤Tg≤0.
Regarding claim 10, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the separator body comprises a substrate, and the polymer layer is arranged on at least one surface of the substrate (see abstract “separator” & “coating layer”; see [0012] “porous polymer composite layer”; see [0021] “separator membrane, preferably comprising one or more polymers” & “substrate may comprise a plurality of polymer layers”; see [0013] “substrate” & “poly ether ether ketone (PEEK)” & “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)” & “poly vinyl methyl ether (PVME)”).
Regarding claim 11, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the separator body comprises a substrate and a heat-resistant coating, the heat-resistant coating is arranged on at least one surface of the substrate (see [0012] “titanium dioxide”), and the polymer layer is arranged on a surface of the heat-resistant coating opposite from the substrate (see [0012] “polymer composite layer” & “ceramic composite layer”).
Regarding claim 13, Du discloses the separator of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a coating weight of the polymer layer ranges from 0.5 mg/1540.25 mm2 to 5 mg/1540.25 mm2.
Cheng teaches “surface density of the heat-resistant layer” & “1.5 to 8 g/m2” in [16].
Cheng teaches a range of 1.5 to 8 g/m2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 mg/1540.25 mm2 to 5 mg/1540.25 mm2 (equivalent to 0.32 -3.25 g/m2). MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 14, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses a battery cell (see [0044] “battery cell”)
Regarding claim 15, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses a battery (see [0046] “battery packs” & see [0066] “battery”).
Regarding claim 16, Du discloses the battery of claim 15 and further discloses an electrical apparatus (see [0066] “automobile power storage” reads on electrical apparatus).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20110183203 A1, “Du”) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20080269366 A1, “Shaffer”), Wen et al. (CN 115668620 A, “Wen”, machine translation is used herein for citation purposes), Cheng et al. (WO 2019086034 A1, “Cheng”), Wang et al. (In Situ Solidified Gel Polymer Electrolytes for Stable Solid−State Lithium Batteries at High Temperatures), and evidenced by Ebnesajjad et al. (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation - Technology, Applications and Manufacturing), Guo (Plastics: Annual Technical Conference, Volume 3: Special Areas - Characterization of a Poly(Ether - Block - Amide) Copolymer and its Significance for Polymer Processing Operations), and Wypych (Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20090111020 A, “Yamaguchi) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 4, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the ether polymer comprises a building block represented by Formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
177
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 and R2 each independently include a hydrogen atom; and R3 includes a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C5 methylene group (see [0013] “substrate” & “poly ether ether ketone (PEEK)” & “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)”).
Yamaguchi provides evidence “ether polymer compound such as polyethylene oxide” in [0147].
Wypych provides evidence of the structure of poly(ethylene oxide) (see P411 linear formula)
PNG
media_image2.png
37
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on Formula (I) when R1 and R2 each independently include a hydrogen atom, and R3 includes a C1 methylene group.
Regarding claim 5, Du discloses the separator of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the ether polymer comprises at least one of a building block represented by Formula (I-1)
PNG
media_image3.png
133
287
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see [0013] “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)”).
Yamaguchi provides evidence “ether polymer compound such as polyethylene oxide” in [0147].
Wypych provides evidence of the structure of poly(ethylene oxide) on P411
PNG
media_image2.png
37
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on Formula (I) when R1 and R2 each independently include a hydrogen atom, and R3 includes a C1 methylene group.
Regarding claim 6, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the ether polymer comprises a building block represented by Formula (II),
PNG
media_image4.png
163
315
media_image4.png
Greyscale
when R4, R5, and R7 are hydrogen and R6 is an ether group (see Du [0013] “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)”).
Yamaguchi provides evidence “ether polymer compound such as polyethylene oxide” in [0147].
Wypych provides evidence of the structure of poly(ethylene oxide) on P411
PNG
media_image2.png
37
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Du discloses the separator of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the ether polymer comprises at least one of a building block represented by Formula (II-1) to a building block represented by Formula (II-7),
PNG
media_image5.png
641
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, (see [0013] “poly vinyl methyl ether (PVME)”).
Wypych provides evidence of the structure of poly(vinyl methyl ether)
PNG
media_image6.png
46
97
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see P680) which reads on Formula (II-1).
Regarding claim 8, Du discloses the separator of claim 4. Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the ether polymer has a molecular weight ranging from 1.2x105g/mol to 1.0x106g/mol.
Cheng teaches in [35] “PEO used herein may have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) ranging, for example, from 100,000 to 1,000,000” which reads on 1x105g/mol to 1x106g/mol.
Cheng teaches a range of 1x105g/mol to 1x106g/mol, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.2x105g/mol to 1.0x106g/mol. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20110183203 A1, “Du”) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20080269366 A1, “Shaffer”), Wen et al. (CN 115668620 A, “Wen”, machine translation is used herein for citation purposes), Cheng et al. (WO 2019086034 A1, “Cheng”), Wang et al. (In Situ Solidified Gel Polymer Electrolytes for Stable Solid−State Lithium Batteries at High Temperatures), and evidenced by Ebnesajjad et al. (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation - Technology, Applications and Manufacturing), Guo (Plastics: Annual Technical Conference, Volume 3: Special Areas - Characterization of a Poly(Ether - Block - Amide) Copolymer and its Significance for Polymer Processing Operations), and Wypych (Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zenkovets et al. (Heat-resistant TiO2 nanocomposites with anatase phase as carriers for highly efficient CO oxidation catalysts) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 12, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the polymer layer further comprises heat-resistant particles (see [0012] “titanium dioxide” & “preferably, the inorganic particles make up from 5% to 80% by weight of the ceramic composite layer”).
Zenkovets provides evidence that TiO2 are heat-resistant (see Abstract “thermally stable nanocomposites TiO2”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the TiO2 particles disclosed by Du are heat-resistant particles because Zenkovets provides evidence TiO2 are thermally stable (see Abstract) which reads on heat-resistant.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20110183203 A1, “Du”) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20080269366 A1, “Shaffer”), Wen et al. (CN 115668620 A, “Wen”, machine translation is used herein for citation purposes), Cheng et al. (WO 2019086034 A1, “Cheng”), Wang et al. (In Situ Solidified Gel Polymer Electrolytes for Stable Solid−State Lithium Batteries at High Temperatures), and evidenced by Ebnesajjad et al. (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation - Technology, Applications and Manufacturing), Guo (Plastics: Annual Technical Conference, Volume 3: Special Areas - Characterization of a Poly(Ether - Block - Amide) Copolymer and its Significance for Polymer Processing Operations), and Wypych (Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai et al. (Research progress on high-temperature resistant polymer separators for lithium-ion batteries).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Du discloses the separator of claim 1 and further discloses in [0013] “substrate” & “poly ether ether ketone (PEEK)” & “poly ethylene oxide (PEO)” & “poly vinyl methyl ether (PVME)” & see [0021] “plurality of polymer layers”. Du discloses in [0014] “electrode support may act in a way that helps to prevent thermal runaway resulting from dendrite formation within the battery, preferably by having electrode support comprises of two or more layers of polymer sheets with different melting points being laminated to provide electrode support”. Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer layer consists essentially of the ether polymer.
Ma teaches on P2 “poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (PEGMEA) is used as the monomers for in situ polymerization due to the formed PEG possessing good compatibility with lithium metal as well as high ionic conductivity, which enables the obtained gel polymer electrolyte to possess both good chemical stability and high ion conductivity at high temperatures”.
Dai teaches on P646 “high temperature resistant polymer separators” & “polyether ether ketone as LIB separator materials” & FIG. 6a describes PEEK has a high melting and decomposition temperature. Dai teaches on P650 “PEEK separator” & “solve the safety problem and improve the power density of LIBs” & on P651 describes “the ultra-strong PEEK separator has excellent heat resistance” & “a flame retardant limit oxygen index” & “which can prevent thermal runaway”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate consists essentially of the ether polymer because Dai teaches PEEK separator has excellent heat resistance and flame retardancy which prevents thermal runaway (see Dai P651) and a skilled artisan would recognize a battery with a polymer layer consisting essentially of PEEK would prevent thermal runway and improve the safety of the battery.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/23/2026