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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP 2016-219275) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2009/0170996).
Regarding claims 1, 10 Abe discloses lithium-ion secondary battery having a high capacity and excellent cycle characteristics and storage properties (page 1). Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm): 80 parts by mass, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP): 100 parts by mass was mixed to prepare a porous layer forming slurry. This slurry was applied to both sides of the negative electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode prepared in Example 1 and dried. A negative electrode in which a porous layer mainly composed of boehmite was formed on both surfaces of the negative electrode mixture layer was obtained (page 19, Example 21), where PVDF corresponds to binder and NMP corresponds to organic solvent of the present invention. As Abe discloses layer comprising boehmite, binder and organic solvent as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that layer would function as insulation layer.
However, Abe fails to disclose that wherein in thermogravimetric analysis of the boehmite under an air stream with a temperature elevating rate of 10C/min: the weight reduction in a range of 200-450C is 10 mass% or lower and the weight reduction in a range of 450 to 600C is 5-13.5%.
Whereas, Bauer discloses flame retardant polymer composite is disclosed. The composite includes a polymer base material and a flame retardant filler provided in the polymer base material, the flame retardant filler containing seeded boehmite particulate material having an aspect ratio of not less than 3:1 (abstract). The term "boehmite" is generally used herein to denote alumina hydrates including mineral boehmite, typically being Al.sub.2O.sub.3.H.sub.2O and having a water content on the order of 15%, as well as psuedoboehmite, having a water content higher than 15%, such as 20-38% by weight (para 0015). Bauer discloses FIG. 2, the results of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) are reported for whisker (needle) shaped boehmite, as compared to conventional ATH. As shown, the needle-shaped boehmite particulate material loses crystalline (as opposed to adsorbed or absorbed) water at lower temperatures and continues losing water at temperatures above ATH, extending into the 500.degree. C. range (para 0048).
From the TGA plot, Nano Alumina shows cumulative weight loss at 119.19C of 3.36% loss and at 514.47C of 21.070% loss, so to estimate the loss between 200C and 450C, we interpolate between 118-514C and total loss between 118-512 is 17.709% and temperature span is 514-118 = 396C, so at 200C loss added is 3.67%, so cumulative loss at 200C is 3.361+3.67 = 7.03% and at 450C loss added is 14.84%, so cumulative loss at 450C is 3.361+14.84 = 18.20%, so weight loss between 200-450C is 11.2%. In similar way, weight reduction in a range of 450-600C is calculated, known cumulative losses is 18.2% at 450C, 21.07 wt% at 514.47C and 24.30 wt% at 1272.77C. The cumulative loss at 600C is calculated as loss increase from 514 to 1272C is 3.23%, temperature span is 1272-514 = 758.3C and loss rate is 0.00426 per C, additional loss from 514-600C is 0.36%, so cumulative loss at 600C is 21.43 wt%, so weight loss between 450C and 600C is 3.2 wt%.
The only deficiency of Bauer is that Bauer disclose the weight loss reduction between 200-450C and 450-600C as 11.2 wt% and 3.2wt%, while the present claims require 5 mass% or lower and 5-13.5 mass%, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization by optimizing the heat temperature motivated by the desire to form a material with desired thermal stability and hydration state for end use applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to the limitation of TGA analysis under an air stream with a temperature elevating rate of 10C/min. Any difference imparted by product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form boehmite of Abe with the weight loss reduction between 200-450C and 450-600C of 11.2 wt% and 3.2wt% as taught by Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved flame retardancy characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm) [page 19, Example 21].
Regarding claims 4-7, Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm): 80 parts by mass, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP): 100 parts by mass was mixed to prepare a porous layer forming slurry (page 19, Example 21).
Regarding claims 8-9, Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm): 80 parts by mass, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP): 100 parts by mass was mixed to prepare a porous layer forming slurry (page 19, Example 21). Based on the calculation, PVDF proportion is 6 wt% with respect to the total mass of the boehmite and binder and solvent is 116 parts by weight and organic solvent is 86 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by mass as the total of the boehmite and binder.
Claim(s) 2 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP 2016-219275) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2009/0170996) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tang et al. (US 2015/0155538).
Regarding claims 2, 13, Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm) [page 19, Example 21], however, Abe in view of Bauer fails to disclose that the crystallite diameter of the boehmite is 100-750 nm.
Whereas, Tang discloses electrical insulation layer including microparticles and having a mesoporous structure; and a battery device including a cathode, an anode, an electrical insulation layer including microparticles and having a mesoporous structure (abstract). The electrical insulation layer comprises microparticles (claim 7) and further comprises binder (claim 11). The microparticles is microparticles Al.sub.2O.sub.3.xH.sub.2O (DISOERAL100) (wherein "DISOERAL100" is a product name) is a pseudo-boehmite (crystallite size (120): 100 nm. (para 0195, table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form boehmite of Abe having a crystallite diameter in a size of 100 nm as taught by Tang motivated by the desire to have excellent capacity retention and mechanical strength.
Regarding claims 14-18, Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm): 80 parts by mass, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP): 100 parts by mass was mixed to prepare a porous layer forming slurry (page 19, Example 21). Abe discloses Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF): 6 parts by mass, boehmite powder (average particle diameter 1 μm): 80 parts by mass, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP): 100 parts by mass was mixe3d to prepare a porous layer forming slurry (page 19, Example 21). Based on the calculation, PVDF proportion is 6 wt% with respect to the total mass of the boehmite and binder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/01/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as stated above.
Applicant argues that the upper limit of the weight reduction in a range of 200 to 450°C of boehmite of claim 1 was restricted to "5.0 mass%." As described in the pending application, the weight reduction in the range of 200 to 450°C in thermogravimetric analysis of the boehmite is preferably lower from the viewpoint of lowering the amount of easily dissociated hydration water ([0017]). Since the upper limit is much lower than the cumulative loss of NANO ALUMINA H in a range of 200 to 450°C, the boehmite of claim 1 is not an obvious modification of the boehmite of Bauer. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the claim 1 based on the teachings of Abe and Bauer.
The only deficiency of Bauer is that Bauer disclose the weight loss reduction between 200-450C and 450-600C as 11.2 wt% and 3.2wt%, while the present claims require 5 mass% or lower and 5-13.5 mass%, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization by optimizing the heat temperature motivated by the desire to form a material with desired thermal stability and hydration state for end use applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights