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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “where a porosity of the porous polymer substrate…” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “where a porosity of the porous polymer substrate…” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “where a pre-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate…” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “where a post-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate…” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite “where a resistance increase rate of the separator…” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US PGPub 2022/0356313 A1), and further in view of Murata et al. (JP 2024-072806 A, cited on the IDS dated October 29, 2025, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses a separator for an electrochemical device ([0001]) comprising:
a porous polymer substrate ([0020], [0060], Embodiment 7).
The Examiner notes wherein the instant specification defines the Total Pore Volume Span by the following equation, wherein D10, D50, and D90 mean average pore sizes corresponding to the bottom 10%, the median value, and the top 90% in the pore size distribution of the porous polymer substrate ([0047]-[0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
86
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng further discloses a pore size distribution of the porous polymer substrate, wherein a maximum pore size, a median pore size, and a minimum pore size of the porous polymer substrate is 85 nm, 55 nm, and 20 nm, respectively, in order to solve the problems of coiling the separator during manufacturing, abnormalities in power charging and discharging, as well as low number of charging-discharging cycles ([0012], Table 2, Embodiment 7).
However, Cheng does not disclose wherein the pore size distribution is in terms of D10, D50, and D90.
Consequently, Cheng does not disclose wherein a Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate is 0.65 or more.
Murata teaches a separator for an electrochemical device, the separator comprising a porous polymer substrate having a pore size distribution in terms of D10, D50, and D90 ([0016], [0024], [0030]).
Specifically, Murata teaches wherein D90 and D10 of the porous polymer substrate satisfy 1.0 < D90/D10 < 5.0 in order to improve performance while preventing the occurrence of micro-short circuits and improving safety ([0024]) and D50 of the porous polymer substrate is preferably 10 nm to 100 nm, and most preferably 40 nm to 60 nm from the viewpoint of suppressing self-discharge of the electrochemical device and suppressing capacity degradation ([0030]).
The Examiner notes wherein the median pore size 55 nm of Cheng falls within the most preferably range of D50 of Murata and wherein the maximum pore size/the minimum pore size is 4.25, which falls within the suitable range of Murata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the porous polymer substrate of Cheng to have a D10 corresponding to the minimum pore size of Cheng, a D50 corresponding to the median pore size of Cheng, and a D90 corresponding to the maximum pore size of Cheng, as taught by Murata, in order to solve the problems of coiling the separator during manufacturing, abnormalities in power charging and discharging, as well as low number of charging-discharging cycles, as desired by Cheng, while also improving performance, preventing the occurrence of micro-short circuits, improving safety, suppressing self-discharge of the electrochemical device, and suppressing capacity degradation.
In light of the above, modified Cheng discloses wherein a Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate is 1.17 (Table 2, Embodiment 7), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a porosity of the porous polymer substrate is 63% (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of greater than 45%.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng remains silent regarding an electrical resistance (ER) of the porous polymer substrate and consequently does not disclose wherein such is 0.37 ohm or less.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein the electrical resistance (ER) may be controlled by the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate. As the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate increases, the pore size distribution of the porous polymer substrate becomes wider and includes pores with sizes equal to or greater than a certain size. Thus, even if pore sizes are changed due to the compression and process of cycles, an increase in resistance may be minimized ([0053]).
For example, Table 1 of the instant specification discloses that when the porous polymer substrate has a Total Pore Volume span that falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, the electrical resistance (ER) necessarily and inherently falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.37 ohm or less.
The Examiner further notes that the electrical resistance (ER) decreases as the Total Pore Volume span increases (Table 1).
In light of the above, because the porous polymer substrate of modified Cheng has a Total Pore Volume span of 1.17 (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, such necessarily and inherently has an electrical resistance (ER) of 0.37 ohm or less, as evidenced by [0053] and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the pore particle size D10 of the porous polymer substrate is 20 nm (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.037 µm or less.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the pore particle size D90 of the porous polymer substrate is 85 nm (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.075 µm or more.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the difference (D90-D10) in pore particle size of the porous polymer substrate is 65 nm (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 40 nm or more.
Regarding Claims 7-8, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng remains silent regarding a pre-compression air permeability and a post-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate and consequently does not disclose wherein such is 75 s/100 cc or less and 120 s/100 cc or less, respectively.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein air permeability is improved by controlling by the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate ([0040]). When the Total Pore Volume falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, the number of pores with relatively large sizes is increased and consequently air permeability is improved ([0045]).
For example, Table 1 of the instant specification discloses that when the porous polymer substrate has a Total Pore Volume span that falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, a pre-compression air permeability and a post-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate necessarily and inherently fall within the ranges of 75 s/100 cc or less and 120 s/100 cc or less, respectively.
The Examiner further notes that the pre-compression air permeability and the post-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate each decrease respectively as the Total Pore Volume span increases (Table 1).
In light of the above, because the porous polymer substrate of modified Cheng has a Total Pore Volume span of 1.17 (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, a pre-compression air permeability and a post-compression air permeability of the porous polymer substrate necessarily and inherently fall within the ranges of 75 s/100 cc or less and 120 s/100 cc or less, respectively, as evidenced by [0040], [0045], and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Cheng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng remains silent regarding a resistance increase rate of the separator and consequently does not disclose wherein such is 40% or less.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein the resistance increase rate of the separator may be controlled by the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate. As the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate increases, the pore size distribution of the porous polymer substrate becomes wider and includes pores with sizes equal to or greater than a certain size. Thus, even if pore sizes are changed due to the compression and process of cycles, an increase in resistance may be minimized ([0063]).
For example, Table 1 of the instant specification discloses that when the porous polymer substrate has a Total Pore Volume span that falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, the resistance increase rate of the separator necessarily and inherently falls within the instantly claimed range of 40% or less.
The Examiner further notes that the resistance increase rate of the separator decreases as the Total Pore Volume span increases (Table 1).
In light of the above, because the porous polymer substrate of modified Cheng has a Total Pore Volume span of 1.17 (Table 2, Embodiment 7 of Cheng), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.65 or more, the resistance increase rate of the separator necessarily and inherently falls within the instantly claimed range of 40% or less, as evidenced by [0063] and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Cheng further discloses an electrochemical device ([0020] of Cheng) comprising:
a positive electrode ([0002] of Cheng);
a negative electrode ([0002] of Cheng); and
the separator as set forth above ([0020] of Cheng), the separator being interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0002] of Cheng).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to Inoue using a different pore size measurement convention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection over Ionue has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 with respect to Cheng in view of Murata have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to recite that the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate is “0.65 or more and 0.90 or less”.
However, the Examiner notes that set of claims filed June 30, 2026 has not been amended and therefore such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The Applicant further argues that Murata teaches away from the claimed invention because Murata’s technical objective is fundamentally opposite to that of the present invention. Murata’s technical objection is to narrow the pore distribution width to achieve uniformity. Specifically, Murata teaches that the pore diameter distribution index D90/D10 should satisfy 1.0 < D90/D10 < 5.0, where a ratio closer to 1.0 indicates more uniform pore sizes. Murata seeks to uniformly control the pore diameter distribution to uniformize current distribution, thereby improving safety and cycle characteristics.
In contrast, the present invention’s technical objective is to intentionally widen the pore size distribution. By controlling the Total Pore Volume Span value of the porous polymer substrate within the claimed range, the pore size distribution becomes wider. Thus, even after compression during a manufacturing process, pore sizes may be maintained above a certain level, thereby suppressing an increase in permeation time and an increase in resistance ([0045] of the instant specification).
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that neither Cheng nor Murata disclose or suggest the “Total Pore Volume Span” parameter as defined in the present invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention. So long as the structure of the separator, specifically Total Pore Volume Span, falls within the instantly claimed range, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
The Applicant argues that the Office Action improperly equates Cheng’s maximum and minimum pore sizes with D90 and D10. The Examiner has alleged that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the porous polymer substrate of Cheng to have a D10 corresponding to the minimum pore size of Cheng, a D50 corresponding to the median pore size of Cheng, and a D90 corresponding to the maximum pore size of Cheng." See Office Action, page 10. Based on this assumption, the Examiner calculates a Total Pore Volume Span of 1.17 using Cheng's maximum pore size of 85 nm, median pore size of 55 nm, and minimum pore size of 20 nm. However, this equivalence is technically incorrect. D90 is not the maximum pore size- it is the pore size at which 90% of pores cumulatively fall below in the pore size distribution. Similarly, D10 is not the minimum pore size-it is the pore size at which 10% of pores cumulatively fall below. The maximum pore size in any distribution will always be greater than or equal to D90, and the minimum pore size will always be less than or equal to D10. By improperly equating these distinct statistical measures, the Examiner's calculation of Total Pore Volume Span = 1.17 is based on a flawed premise.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as set forth in the prior rejection, the distinction between the maximum pore size and D90 and the minimum pore size and D10 has been recognized.
Murata teaches wherein D90 and D10 of the porous polymer substrate satisfy 1.0 < D90/D10 < 5.0 in order to improve performance while preventing the occurrence of micro-short circuits and improving safety ([0024]) and D50 of the porous polymer substrate is preferably 10 nm to 100 nm, and most preferably 40 nm to 60 nm from the viewpoint of suppressing self-discharge of the electrochemical device and suppressing capacity degradation ([0030]).
The Examiner notes wherein the median pore size 55 nm of Cheng falls within the most preferably range of D50 of Murata and wherein the maximum pore size/the minimum pore size is 4.25, which falls within the suitable range of Murata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the porous polymer substrate of Cheng to have a D10 corresponding to the minimum pore size of Cheng, a D50 corresponding to the median pore size of Cheng, and a D90 corresponding to the maximum pore size of Cheng, as taught by Murata, in order to solve the problems of coiling the separator during manufacturing, abnormalities in power charging and discharging, as well as low number of charging-discharging cycles, as desired by Cheng, while also improving performance, preventing the occurrence of micro-short circuits, improving safety, suppressing self-discharge of the electrochemical device, and suppressing capacity degradation.
In other words, the Examiner notes that when the porous polymer substrate of Cheng is modified to have a D10 corresponding to the minimum pore size of Cheng, a D50 corresponding to the median pore size of Cheng, and a D90 corresponding to the maximum pore size of Cheng, the porous polymer substrate achieves the benefits taught by Murata in combination with maximum pore size and minimum pore size relationship desired by Cheng.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that, as recognized by the Applicant, D10, D50, and D90 mean average pore sizes corresponding to the bottom 10%, the median value, and the top 90% in the pore size distribution of the porous polymer substrate. Therefore, because the porous polymer substrate of Cheng has a plurality of pores ([0032], e.g. has a porosity), the porous polymer substrate of Cheng is capable of being modified to have a D10 corresponding to the minimum pore size of Cheng, a D50 corresponding to the median pore size of Cheng, and a D90 corresponding to the maximum pore size of Cheng.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that the claimed range produces unexpected results demonstrating criticality. Table 1 of the instant specification provides a direct comparation between examples having Total Pore Volume Span values below the claimed range. When the Total Pore Volume Span crosses the 0.65 threshold, the resistance increase rate drops dramatically. In contrast, Examples 1 and 2, having Total Pore Volume Span values of 0.72 and 0.84 respectively (within the claimed range of 0.65 to 0.90) exhibited resistance increase rates of only 24% and 17% (Table 1, [0113]). Neither Cheng nor Murata discloses or suggests any correlation between Total Pore Volume Span and resistance increase rate, let alone the critical significance of the 0.65 threshold. The unexpected and superior results achieved by the claimed invention could not have been predicted from the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as set forth above, the range of 0.65 to 0.90 has not been claimed and therefore the arguments directed to such are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Table 1 and [0045], [0051], [0055]-[0056] of the instant specification demonstrate wherein the Total Pore Volume Span in combination with porosity (e.g. 45% to 70%) and particle pore sizes D10, D50, and D90 (e.g. D10 of 0.01 to 0.037 µm and D90 of 0.075 to 0.1 µm) are critical in achieving the alleged unexpected and superior results.
In other words, the Examiner notes that the instant specification does not provide evidence that a separator that comprises a Total Pore Volume Span within the range of 0.65 to 0.90 but a porosity and/or particle pore sizes D10, D50, and D90 that fall outside of the suitable ranges would also achieve the unexpected and superior results.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant could amend Claim 1 to require the porous polymer substrate to comprise a Total Pore Volume Span value of 0.65 to 0.90 in combination with a porosity of 45% to 70% and particle pore size D10 of 0.01 to 0.037 µm and a particle pore size D90 of 0.075 to 0.1 µm in order to make the Applicant’s arguments of unexpected and superior results commensurate with the scope of the claims in light of Table 1 and [0045], [0051], [0055]-[0056] of the instant specification.
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights