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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 July 2026. Examiner notes that claim 18 was not included in Group II of the claims, drawn to a method, in the requirement for restriction filed on 11 June 2026. However, in a phone call made to Applicant on 15 September 2026, both parties agreed that claim 18 belongs to nonelected Group II and is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Group II.
Summary
This non-final office action for application 18/487,357 is in response to Applicant’s reply, filed on 29 July 2026, to an election/restriction requirement dated 11 June 2026. Accordingly, claims 1-13, 17, and 19 are under full consideration.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the phrase “the surface of the coating” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuichi discloses a separator (a battery separator; see [0092]), including: a porous substrate (micropores of the substrate; see [0093]); and a coating disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate (a portion of the battery separator coating liquid that forms the coating layer may penetrate into the micropores of the substrate; see [0093]), wherein the coating includes nanocellulose (The coating layer contains fine particles, fibrous cellulose with a fiber width of 1000 nm or less; see [0092]), the nanocellulose includes modifying groups (The fine fibrous cellulose preferably has ionic substituents; see [0036]), and the modifying groups include at least one of sulfonic acid groups, boric acid groups, and phosphoric acid groups (It is preferable that the fine fibrous cellulose has a phosphate group or a substituent derived from a phosphate group. The phosphate group is a divalent functional group, which is obtained by removing the hydroxyl group from phosphoric acid; see [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the nanocellulose further includes hydroxyl groups (the amount of ionic substituent introduced is preferably 3.65 mmol/g or less per 1 g (mass) of fine fibrous cellulose; see [0037] – this indicates only a partial substitution meaning there are remaining hydroxyl groups), and the content ratio of the modifying groups to the hydroxyl groups is 1:4 - 4:1 (Furthermore, the amount of ionic substituent introduced is preferably 3.65 mmol/g or less per 1 g (mass) of fine fibrous cellulose, more preferably 3.50 mmol/g or less, and even more preferably 3.00 mmol/g or less; see [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the average diameter of the nanocellulose is ≤40nm (celluloses with a fiber width of approximately 4 nm; see [0127]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the nanocellulose is selected from one or more of the following: tubular, fibrous, and rod-shaped (fine fibrous cellulose; see [0092]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1. The limitation claiming, “wherein the time when the separator leaks current at 65°C and 4.3V is >12 days” merely specifies a performance characteristic of the separator under particular operating/test conditions and does not further limit the structure or composition of the separator recited in claim 1. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the coating further includes a filler (the coating layer comprises fine particles; see [0010], and the filler includes at least one of inorganic particles, organic particles, and organic-inorganic hybrid particles (Examples of fine particles contained in battery separator coatings include organic fine particles and inorganic fine particles; see [0079]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yuichi discloses a secondary battery comprising a separator according to claim 1 (The battery separator of the present invention is preferably used in electrochemical elements such as lithium secondary batteries; see [0112]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yuichi discloses an electrical apparatus comprising a secondary battery according to claim 17 (Lithium-ion batteries are used as power sources for various devices, including mobile phones, notebook computers and other portable devices, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, electric motorcycles, electric-assist bicycles, power tools, shavers, and many other applications that have been known for some time; see [0118]).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the average length of the nanocellulose is 100-600 nm (The fiber length of the fine fibrous cellulose is not particularly limited, but is preferably 0.1 μm to 1000 μm, more preferably 0.1 μm to 800 μm, and particularly preferably 0.1 μm to 600 μm). MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 5, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein the aspect ratio of the nanocellulose is 5-60 (“The fiber length of the fine fibrous cellulose is not particularly limited, but is preferably 0.1 μm to 1000 μm, more preferably 0.1 μm to 800 μm, and particularly preferably 0.1 μm to 600 μm”; see [0034] and “The coating layer contains fine particles, fibrous cellulose with a fiber width of 1000 nm or less”; see [0092]). MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A) in view of Ha et al. (US-5769934-A), hereinafter “Ha”.
Regarding Claim 6, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1.
While Yuichi discloses a degree of polymerization, Yuichi does not explicitly teach the equilibrium degree of polymerization. However, Ha discloses wherein an equilibrium degree of polymerization of a nanocellulose is 150-300 (microcrystalline cellulose has a level off degree of polymerization of from about 150 to about 300; see Claim 23).
Yuichi and Ha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microcrystalline cellulose products. Using a nanocellulose with an equilibrium degree of polymerization of 150-300, as taught by Ha, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Ha offers the motivation of good yields and high purity (see Col. 4 Lines 31-34).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A) in view of Yang (CN-107369802-A).
Regarding Claim 9, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1.
Yuichi does not explicitly teach the content of the nanocellulose in the coating as being ≥5 wt%. However, Yang discloses wherein the content of nanocellulose in a coating for a separator is ≥5 wt% (Take 2g of polyvinyl alcohol and add it to 200g of deionized water to boil it into a uniform and transparent solution. Take 1g of carboxymethyl cellulose and add it to 200g of deionized water and stir it evenly. Mix the polyvinyl alcohol solution and carboxymethyl cellulose solution and stir for 6 hours. Add 1g of nanocellulose to the mixed solution and continue stirring for 6 hours until a uniform aqueous suspension is obtained. After coating the surface of the polyethylene separator with a well-mixed aqueous suspension, the separator was quickly placed in an anhydrous ethanol bath for 24 hours. Finally, the separator was removed and placed in a vacuum drying oven at 40°C for 12 hours to obtain a cellulose-coated lithium-ion battery separator; see [0023]).
Yuichi and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nanocellulose coatings for separators. Using a content of ≥5 wt% of nanocellulose in the coating, as disclosed by Yang, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yang offers the motivation of achieving a separator with an electrolyte absorption rate of 317% (see [0024]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A) in view of Lim et al. (US-20210359375-A1), hereinafter “Lim”.
Regarding Claim 11, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1.
Yuichi does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the coating layer is ≤ 3 μm. However, Lim discloses wherein the thickness of a nanocellulose coating on a separator is ≤ 3 μm (thickness of the coating layer 120 may be about 1.5 μm; see [0095]).
Yuichi and Lim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nanocellulose coatings for separators. Applying the coating layer to have a thickness ≤ 3 μm, as disclosed by Lim, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Lim offers the motivation of the characteristics of the network disclosed by Lim resulting in performances such as thermal contraction, mechanical strength, and the like of the separator being ameliorated (see [0083]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1. Lim then discloses wherein the air permeability of the separator is ≤300 s/100mL (see Table 1). It is noted that the limitations concerning thermal shrinkage, wetted length, release force, transverse tensile strength, longitudinal tensile strength, and air permeability define properties/performance characteristics of the separator resulting from its underlying structure and composition, rather than requiring additional structural components or structural relationships. Lim further discloses that these properties are affected by the content of cellulose nanofiber in the separator coating, particularly that increasing the content of cellulose nanofiber increases/improves the forementioned properties (see [0262]). Lim therefore recognizes cellulose nano fiber content as a result-effective variable affecting the recited separator properties. It would have been obvious ot a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of cellulose nano fiber in the coating to obtain desirable thermal contraction and air permeability characteristics since optimization of a recognized result effective variable would have involved no more than routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuichi (JP-2018063924-A) in view of Koga et al. (US-20210296732-A1), hereinafter “Koga”.
Regarding Claim 13, Yuichi discloses the separator according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of a surface of the coating is further provided with an adhesive layer (In addition to the components listed above, the battery separator coating solution may also contain binder components…By further including a binder component in the battery separator coating solution, the adhesion to the battery separator substrate described later can be improved; see [0090]).
Yuichi does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer including a granular organic binder. However, Koga discloses an adhesive layer in a battery wherein the adhesive layer includes a granular organic binder (organic particles contained in the composition for a secondary battery adhesive layer are a component that functions as a binder; see [0032]).
Yuichi and Koga are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coatings for battery structures. Using an adhesive layer that comprises granular organic particles, as taught by Koga, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Koga offers the motivation of enabling an adhesive layer to be efficiently formed on a porous membrane layer even in a situation in which an inkjet method is used, the porous membrane layer-equipped substrate and an adhesion target member can be strongly adhered via the adhesive layer; see [0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights