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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/4/2024 and 4/23/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 4/4/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiroto et al (JP 2016138288 A)
Regarding claims 1-2, Hiroto discloses a dispersion for coating layer formation of a stacked porous film, comprising a alumina having an average particle diameter of 0.5 µm (500 nm); and a separator for a battery including same, indicates that when the alumina is applied to a separator battery for a non-aqueous electrolytic solution secondary battery, α alumina, which is a single crystal of aluminum oxide, would be preferable.
Hiroto teaches that the alumina is a crystal of aluminum oxide (Al₂NER42₀O₂NER43₀) molecules, and is generally produced by calcination of aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)₂NER44₀) (Bayer process) or heat treatment of an aluminum alkoxide gel (alkoxide process). Alumina obtained by these methods can be α-alumina, γ-alumina, θ-alumina, κ-alumina, or pseudo-boehmite, depending on its transition morphology. A transition refers to the change in crystalline form from the starting material to a single crystal of aluminum oxide through purification, and α-alumina is essentially a single crystal of aluminum oxide [paragraphs 0001, 0042, 0043 and 0087; claims 1 and 4].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-2 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al (KR 2010-0040955 A) in view of Hiroto et al (JP 2016138288 A).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 13, Hideaki discloses a separator for an electrochemical device, comprising a porous insulating layer prepared from slurry for insulating layer formation; and a porous substrate, wherein the slurry for insulating layer formation comprises alumina having a polyhedral shape; and D50 of the alumina after being dispersed in water is 0.54 µm (540 nm), and the average particle diameter thereof is 0.54 µm (540 nm) [paragraphs 0145, 0146 and 0164-0166; claims 1, 14 and 15].
Hideaki does not teach α alumina, however, Hiroto discloses a dispersion for coating layer formation of a stacked porous film, comprising a alumina having an average particle diameter of 0.5 µm (500 nm); and a separator for a battery including same, indicates that when the alumina is applied to a separator battery for a non-aqueous electrolytic solution secondary battery, α alumina, which is a single crystal of aluminum oxide, would be preferable. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Hideaki teaches that the separator for an electrochemical device comprises the porous insulating layer and the porous substrate [claims 1, 14 and 15].
Regarding claims 15-16, the limitation in the claims delimit the physical properties of the component, but the component of claim 13 could be derived from a combination of Hideaki and Hiroto references, and thus if the same measurements are performed for a component derived from a combination of Hideaki and Hiroto references, the measurements would satisfy the ranges limited in claims 15-16.
11. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al (KR 2010-0040955 A) in view of Hiroto et al (JP 2016138288 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al (US 20230313009 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hideaki/Hiroto remains silent about α-alumina particles having a 14-hedral crystal structure and the ratio of [0001] planes in the polyhedral crystal structure of the a-alumina particles is 10 to 20% of the total crystal plane area. However, Lee teaches α-alumina particles having a 14-hedral (14-face) crystal structure, wherein the α-alumina particles have an average diameter (D50) of 300 nm to 10 μm and a bulk density of 0.2-0.5 g/mL, a [0001] face in the crystal structure of the α-alumina particles occupies 10-20% on the basis of the total crystal face area [Abstract; paragraph 0021].
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the coating composition with the combination of element as claimed, including the method comprising:(S1) mixing and reacting an aqueous solution comprising one or more aluminum salts with an aqueous solution containing a pH adjusting agent, and filtering and washing the product to obtain pseudo-boehmite of the following structural formula 1;
PNG
media_image1.png
208
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(S2) mixing the pseudo-boehmite with a fluorine-based mineralizer and ultrapure water, and pulverizing the mixture, followed by filtering and drying; and (S3) filtering and drying the product of step (S2) and then calcining it to obtain a powder of α-alumina particles having a polyhedral crystal structure and an average particle diameter (D50) of 100 to 900 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights