DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled.
The foreign priority document No.110141778 filed in Taiwan on November 10, 2021 has been received and it is acknowledged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 03, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “does not comprises” in claim 1 should be corrected to read “does not comprise”.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-11 are objected as being dependent on the objected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noda et al. (JP H07-272755 A, with attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 1, Noda et al. teach an aluminum non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, an electrolyte comprising aluminum halide, and a polytetrafluoroethylene separator separating the negative electrode and the positive electrode (abstract, par.0001).
The aluminum halide is represented by the formula AlX3, wherein X may be Cl (par.0010).
An electrolyte comprising AlX3, wherein X is Cl is “an electrolyte located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the electrolyte comprises aluminum chloride” in claim 1.
A polytetrafluoroethylene separator is “a separator located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the separator comprises a polymer material layer, the polymer material layer comprises one polymer material and does not comprise polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP)m and a glass fiber material” in claim 1.
Therefore, the aluminum non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Noda et al. anticipates the aluminum battery in claim 1.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the aluminum battery in claim 1 based on Noda’s teachings regarding the components of the aluminum non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, polytetrafluoroethylene is a perfluoro-substituted polymer material in claim 2, and meets the limitations of claim 3.
With regard to claim 5, polyvinylidene fluoride is a polymer film pore-forming material.
With regard to claim 10, a polytetrafluoroethylene separator is a single-layer structure.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al. (US 2003/0059684).
With regard to claim 1, Takami et al. teach an aluminum battery comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte contacting the negative electrode and the positive electrode (par.0007-0008). The electrolyte may comprise aluminum chloride (AlCl3) (par.0037).
A separator is placed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and the separator may be a porous film of polyvinylidene fluoride (par.0045-0046).
The porous film of polyvinylidene fluoride of Takami et al. is “a separator comprising a polymer material layer, the polymer material layer comprises a polymer material, and the separator does not comprise polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and the separator does not comprise a glass fiber material” in claim 1.
Takami et al. do not specifically teach the aluminum battery in claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the aluminum battery in claim 1 because Takami et al. teach the components of the battery and provide examples for each component.
Therefore, the aluminum battery in claim 1 is obvious over the aluminum secondary battery of Senda et al.
With regard to claim 5, polyvinylidene fluoride is a polymer film pore-forming material (see par.0046 of Takami et al.).
With regard to claim 10, a porous film of polyvinylidene fluoride is a single-layer structure.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senda et al. (US 2012/0034531).
With regard to claim 1, Senda et al. teach an aluminum secondary battery (par.0010), wherein the battery comprises an electrolyte including AlCl3 as electrolyte salt (par.0019, par.0022, par.0024, and par.0052).
The battery comprises a cathode (11), an anode (12), and a separator (13) which separates the cathode (11) and the anode (12)(fig.1, par.0044, par.0048). The electrolyte is impregnated into the separator (13) and reaches the cathode (11) and the anode (12)(par.0049).
Senda et al. further teach that the separator may be a porous membrane composed of a synthetic resin, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (par.0048).
A porous membrane of polytetrafluoroethylene of Senda et al. is “a separator comprising a polymer material layer, the polymer material layer comprises a polymer material, and the separator does not comprise polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and the separator does not comprise a glass fiber material” in claim 1.
Senda et al. do not specifically teach the aluminum battery in claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain an aluminum secondary battery comprising an anode, a cathode, an electrolyte comprising aluminum chloride, and a separator comprising a porous membrane made of polytetrafluoroethylene, because Senda et al. teach the components of the battery and provide examples for each component.
Therefore, the aluminum battery in claim 1 is obvious over the aluminum secondary battery of Senda et al.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Senda et al. teach that the separator may comprise polytetrafluoroethylene (par.0048). This is a perfluoro-substituted polymer material in claim 2, and meets the limitations of claim 3.
With regard to claim 5, Senda et al. teach a porous membrane which may be made of polytetrafluoroethylene (par.0048). Therefore, these polymers are polymer film pore-forming materials.
With regard to claim 11, Senda et al. teach that the separator (13) may be formed by stacking two or more kinds of porous membranes (par.0048). This is equivalent to the claimed multi-layer structure.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al. (US 2001/0028979) in view of Schmidt et al. (US Patent 4,137,379).
With regard to claim 1, Takami et al. teach an aluminum battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (abstract, par.0007-0010, par.0160-0164). The electrolyte may comprise AlCl3 (par.0230).
Takami et al. further teach that the separator may be a sheet of synthetic fibers (par.0097), but fail to specifically teach the separator in claim 1.
Schmidt et al. teach a separator made from a compressed web of synthetic fibers deposited in a random arrangement and having an essentially dumbbell-shaped profile (abstract). The microporous separator is used for batteries (column 1, lines 6-7), has good electrical properties and great uniformity in its mechanical characteristics (column 1, lines 50-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the separator made of synthetic fibers of Schmidt et al. in the aluminum battery of Takami et al., in order to take advantage of its superior properties.
Schmidt et al. teach that the fibers comprise polystyrene or polycarbonate (abstract). Therefore, the separator of Takami modified by Schmidt is “a separator comprising a polymer material layer, the polymer material layer comprises a polymer material and does not comprise polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), and the separator does not comprise a glass fiber material” in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, polystyrene is a polymer material comprising a benzene ring.
With regard to claims 3 and 5, Schmidt et al. teach a separator made of polycarbonate microfibers (Example 1 in column 3).
Polycarbonate microfibers meet the limitations of claim 5 for a polymer fiber material.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Schmidt et al. teach that the fibers have a maximum diameter of 1 to 10 mm (abstract). This range is within the claimed ranges for fiber diameter.
With regard to claim 10, Schmidt et al. teach a separator made of polycarbonate microfibers (Example 1 in column 3). This is equivalent to a separator wherein the polymer material layer is a single layer structure.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (JP H07-272755 A, with attached machine translation) in view of Hirai et al. (JP 2005-071726A, with attached machine translation).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Noda et al. teach the aluminum battery in claim 5 (see paragraph 7 above), but fail to teach the pore size of the polytetrafluoroethylene separator.
Hirai et al. teach an aluminum battery comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator with pore size of 2-15 microns (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a polytetrafluoroethylene separator with pore size of 2-15 microns in the aluminum battery of Noda et al.
The range of 2-15 microns is within the ranges in claims 6 and 7 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 03, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takami et al. (US 2003/0059684) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. (US 2018/0138554) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The applicant argues that Takami (‘979) teach glass fiber as the preferable embodiment, and also teach a porous polyolefin film (par.0097). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to exclude glass fiber material, polyethylene (PE), and polypropylene (PP), as required in claim 1.
However, the examiner would like to point out that par.0097 of Takami (‘979) teach that the separator may be a sheet of synthetic fiber. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a sheet of synthetic fiber as the separator of Takami (‘979).
Additionally, a preferred embodiment is not a teaching away from the broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments/teachings of a reference.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP 2123. II.NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chang et al. (US 2017/0358815) teach an electrolyte comprising a metal chloride, such as aluminum chloride (claims 1 and 2). Chang et al. further teach a metal-ion battery comprising a positive electrolyte, a negative electrolyte, a separator, and the electrolyte (claim 9). The separator may be made of poly(ether sulfones)(claim 18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722