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, see Remarks Page 4, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 4-7, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In P4 and P5 of Applicant’s specification, WO2016/124213 should be corrected to WO2019/124213.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1-11, the claims recite the term “LDH-like compound”.
Applicant defines the term “LDH-like compound” in their specification by stating “The "LDH-like compound" is defined herein as a hydroxide and/or an oxide having a layered crystal structure that cannot be called LDH but is analogous to LDH, for which no peak attributable to LDH is detected in X-ray diffraction method” (P14).
It is unclear what “analogous to LDH” means. Does it mean analogous in function? Does it mean analogous in chemical structure? Can any compound be considered an LDH-like compound so long as it provides the functionality of an LDH compound?
Further, LDH is a large class of compounds and each compound will not all have the exact same peak locations (i.e. 2θ values) in an X-ray diffraction pattern. While the class of compound may have similar peak locations due to the layered crystal structure being present in all of them, the peaks are naturally going to shift within a range to different locations based on atom spacing and sizing.
As seen in Fig. 1 of evidentiary reference Balcomb (Synthesis and Characterization of Layered Double Hydroxides and Their Potential as Nonviral Gene Delivery Vehicles), their Mg-Al diffraction peaks distinctive of an LDH structure shows an LDH material having a multitude of peaks in an X-ray diffraction pattern.
PNG
media_image1.png
854
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Balcomb
As seen in Fig. 1 of evidentiary reference Talbi (The High Performance of Multi-Metal Layered Double Hydroxides (LDHs) in the Removal of Organic Dyes), their MgNiAl-LDH and MgNiFe-LDH material each have a plurality of peaks in the provided X-ray diffraction pattern.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Talbi
Therefore, defining the “LDH-like compound” as a compound that cannot be called LDH but is analogous to LDH, for which no peak attributable to LDH is detectable, is indefinite, given LDH is a large class of compounds and it is unclear what peak locations and respective values and/or ranges for 2θ are being taken into consideration.
If the controlling definition of the claim stated, “no peaks attributable to [explicit compound X such as rutile TiO2]”, then this definition would not be an issue because one could look up the specific X-ray diffraction pattern for rutile TiO2 and know when the claim was or was not met. However, to define that the “LDH-like compound” does not have any peak attribute to any LDH compound (a large multitude of options), yet somehow still has the same general crystal structure, is not a definitive definition and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Evidentiary reference Wikipedia (Layered double hydroxides) states that “Layered double hydroxides (LDH) are a class of ionic solids characterized by a layered structure with the generic layer sequence [AcB Z AcB]n, where c represents positively charged layers of metal cations, A and B are layers of hydroxide (OH−) anions, and Z are interlayers filled by various anions (ensuring the electroneutrality of the system) and neutral molecules such as water” (Page 1).
Wikipedia further states that “Naturally occurring (i.e., mineralogical) examples of LDH are classified as members of the hydrotalcite supergroup, named after the Mg-Al carbonate hydrotalcite, which is the longest-known example of a natural LDH phase. More than 40 mineral species are known to fall within this supergroup” (Page 3).
Therefore, in just naturally occurring examples of LDH, there are more than 40 species. It is unclear how one is supposed to know when the “LDH-like compound”, which is made of the same materials as LDH (see claim 2) and has the same type of crystal lattice structure (layered), does not have any peak attributed to any known “LDH compound” when “LDH compound” covers a large class of materials each having their own peak.
Claim Analysis
Per MPEP § 2143.03:
“"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). (The Board erred because it ignored claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.). However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.)
MPEP § 2173.06 further notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The claims are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination as detailed above for the multiple reasons set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph. A rejection is not made under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on what would be considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims; however, the best prior art for the inventive concept as best understood by the Examiner is detailed below.
P26 of the specification as filed teaches the basic composition formula of LDH is: M2+1-xM3+x(OH2)An-x/n * mH2) wherein M2+ is a divalent cation, An- is a n-valent anion, n is an integer of 1 or greater, x is 0.1 to 0.4 and m is 0 or greater. The specification states that, “In contrast, the atomic ratio in the LDH-like compound generally deviates from that of the above formula of LDH. Therefore, the LDH-like compound in the present embodiment can be said to have a composition ratio (atomic ratio) different from that of conventional LDH.”
Yamamoto et al. (WO 2019/131221)1 teaches what appears to be a genus of materials encompassing what would be an “LDH-like” compound based on the above definition at P26 (i.e., atomic ratio of “LDH-like compound” is different from the basic composition formula above). Yamamoto teaches a genus of materials that is (page 4 of the translation):
Ni2+1-xy(Al3+1-αY3+α)xTi4+y(OH)2An-(x+2y) ‧mH2O), wherein 0 <x <1, and 0 <y <1.
This encompasses materials that are outside of the “conventional LDH basic compositional formula” and would thus read on the P26 explanation of an “LDH-like compound.”
As far as the lines 4-6 of the claim, this structure is taught by WO 2019/124213 (as summarized in Applicant’s own specification at (P4) (note the error in the reference should be corrected as objected to above):
PNG
media_image3.png
212
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that both of the above references are published at least an entire year before the JP 2020-198982 filing date of (11/30/2020) to which a claim to foreign priority is made such that they are not eligible for any exceptions under 35 U.S.C. (b)(1).
Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith
MPEP 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith
37 C.F.R. 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability
(a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section. The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned. Information material to the patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration need not be submitted if the information is not material to the patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b) -(d) and 1.98. However, no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct.
(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are:
(1) Each inventor named in the application;
(2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and
(3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.
(d) Individuals other than the attorney, agent or inventor may comply with this section by disclosing information to the attorney, agent, or inventor.
(e) In any continuation-in-part application, the duty under this section includes the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, which became available between the filing date of the prior application and the national or PCT international filing date of the continuation-in-part application.
MPEP 2001.06(b) Information Relating to or From Copending United States Patent Applications
The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972):
[W]e think that it is unfair to the busy examiner, no matter how diligent and well informed he may be, to assume that he retains details of every pending file in his mind when he is reviewing a particular application . . . [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
See also MPEP § 2004, paragraph 9.
Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are "material to patentability" of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 in view of Takeuchi et al (WO2019124213A1, with an EFD of 06/27/2019, using US 20200313137 A1 as an English equivalent for translation, both provided in the 05/31/2023 IDS).
Regarding claims 1-2 of App. 18180231, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 teaches “A hydroxide ion-conductive separator comprising: a porous substrate; and a layered double hydroxide (LDH)-like compound filling pores of the porous substrate, wherein the LDH-like compound is a hydroxide and/or an oxide with a layered crystal structure, containing: Mg; and one or more elements, which include at least Ti, selected from the group consisting of Ti, Y, and Al” and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 teaches “wherein the porous substrate is composed of a polymer material”.
U.S. Patent No. 11431034 does not teach “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”.
Takeuchi teaches a secondary zinc battery (drawn to claim 10) or a solid-state alkaline fuel cell (drawn to claim 11) comprising: a separator (LDH separator 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a porous substrate made of a polymeric material (12 in Fig. 1) and a compound with which pores of the porous substrate are plugged (layered double hydroxide (LDH) 14 in Fig. 1); wherein the separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the separator (“the remaining pores P of the LDH separator 10 of the present invention are flattened (the longitudinal directions of the remaining pores are non-parallel to the thickness direction of the LDH separator 10) and can thus divert the zinc dendrites to grow along the flattened pores”, P19; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P9-10, 19).
Takeuchi teaches when the remaining pores of the separator are flattened, the zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of the zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented (P19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided to the separator of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”, given Takeuchi teaches this can provide wherein zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-11 of App. 18180231, claims 8-9 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 are substantially similar.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, and 12-13 of copending Application No. 17936962 (US 20230045074 A1) in view of Takeuchi et al (WO2019124213A1, with an EFD of 06/27/2019, using US 20200313137 A1 as an English equivalent for translation, both provided in the 05/31/2023 IDS).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1-2 of App. 18180231, claim 1 of copending Application No. 17936962 (US 20230045074 A1) teaches “An LDH separator comprising a porous substrate and a layered double hydroxide (LDH)-like compound that fills up pores of the porous substrate, wherein the LDH-like compound is a hydroxide and/or an oxide with a layered crystal structure, comprising (i) Ti, Y, and optionally Al and/or Mg, and (ii) at least one additive element M selected from the group consisting of In, Bi, Ca, Sr, and Ba” and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 teaches “wherein the porous substrate is composed of a polymer material”.
Copending Application No. 17936962 (US 20230045074 A1) does not teach “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”.
Takeuchi teaches a secondary zinc battery (drawn to claim 10) or a solid-state alkaline fuel cell (drawn to claim 11) comprising: a separator (LDH separator 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a porous substrate made of a polymeric material (12 in Fig. 1) and a compound with which pores of the porous substrate are plugged (layered double hydroxide (LDH) 14 in Fig. 1); wherein the separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the separator (“the remaining pores P of the LDH separator 10 of the present invention are flattened (the longitudinal directions of the remaining pores are non-parallel to the thickness direction of the LDH separator 10) and can thus divert the zinc dendrites to grow along the flattened pores”, P19; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P9-10, 19).
Takeuchi teaches when the remaining pores of the separator are flattened, the zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of the zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented (P19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided to the separator of copending Application No. 17936962 (US 20230045074 A1) “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”, given Takeuchi teaches this can provide wherein zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-11 of App. 18180231, claims 8-9 and 12-13 of copending Application No. 17936962 (US 20230045074 A1) are substantially similar.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, and 8-9 of copending Application No. 18047692 (US 20230069319 A1) in view of Takeuchi et al (WO2019124213A1, with an EFD of 06/27/2019, using US 20200313137 A1 as an English equivalent for translation, both provided in the 05/31/2023 IDS).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1-2 of App. 18180231, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18047692 (US 20230069319 A1) teaches “An LDH separator comprising a porous substrate and a mixture of a layered double hydroxide (LDH)-like compound and In(OH).sub.3, which fills up pores of the porous substrate, wherein the LDH-like compound is a hydroxide and/or an oxide with a layered crystal structure, comprising Mg, Ti, Y, and optionally Al and/or In” and claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11431034 teaches “wherein the porous substrate is made of a polymeric material”.
Copending Application No. 18047692 (US 20230069319 A1) does not teach “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”.
Takeuchi teaches a secondary zinc battery (drawn to claim 10) or a solid-state alkaline fuel cell (drawn to claim 11) comprising: a separator (LDH separator 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a porous substrate made of a polymeric material (12 in Fig. 1) and a compound with which pores of the porous substrate are plugged (layered double hydroxide (LDH) 14 in Fig. 1); wherein the separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the separator (“the remaining pores P of the LDH separator 10 of the present invention are flattened (the longitudinal directions of the remaining pores are non-parallel to the thickness direction of the LDH separator 10) and can thus divert the zinc dendrites to grow along the flattened pores”, P19; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P9-10, 19).
Takeuchi teaches when the remaining pores of the separator are flattened, the zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of the zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented (P19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided to the separator of copending Application No. 18047692 (US 20230069319 A1) “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”, given Takeuchi teaches this can provide wherein zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-11 of App. 18180231, claims 4-5 and 8-9 of Copending Application No. 18047692 (US 20230069319 A1) are substantially similar.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, and 8-9 of copending Application No. 18167798 (US 20230198095 A1) in view of Takeuchi et al (WO2019124213A1, with an EFD of 06/27/2019, using US 20200313137 A1 as an English equivalent for translation, both provided in the 05/31/2023 IDS).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1 of App. 18180231, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18167798 (US 20230198095 A1) teaches “An LDH-like separator, comprising a porous substrate made of a polymer material and a layered double hydroxide (LDH)-like compound plugging pores of the porous substrate”.
Copending Application No. 18167798 (US 20230198095 A1) does not teach “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”.
Takeuchi teaches a secondary zinc battery (drawn to claim 10) or a solid-state alkaline fuel cell (drawn to claim 11) comprising: a separator (LDH separator 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a porous substrate made of a polymeric material (12 in Fig. 1) and a compound with which pores of the porous substrate are plugged (layered double hydroxide (LDH) 14 in Fig. 1); wherein the separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the separator (“the remaining pores P of the LDH separator 10 of the present invention are flattened (the longitudinal directions of the remaining pores are non-parallel to the thickness direction of the LDH separator 10) and can thus divert the zinc dendrites to grow along the flattened pores”, P19; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P9-10, 19).
Takeuchi teaches when the remaining pores of the separator are flattened, the zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of the zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented (P19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided to the separator of copending Application No. 18167798 (US 20230198095 A1) “wherein the LDH-like compound separator has a plurality of remaining flattened pores, longitudinal directions of the pores being non-parallel to a thickness direction of the LDH-like compound separator”, given Takeuchi teaches this can provide wherein zinc dendrites are diverted to grow along the flattened pores, and as a result, development of zinc dendrites along the thickness of the separator can be significantly prevented
Regarding claims 2, 5-6, and 8-10 of App. 18180231, claims 2, 5-6, and 8-10 of Copending Application No. 18167798 (US 20230198095 A1) are substantially similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Discovered within U.S. patent application 17/936,962 (=US 2023/0045074) reciting similar subject matter in the claims as the instant claims, the WO 2019/131,221 applied in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/23/2025 of the prosecution history of 17/936,962.
Prosecution Insights