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 .
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites viscosity values using the units “mPa/s”. The term “mPa/s” does not identify a unit of viscosity and is dimensionally different form mPa*s. Because the specification describe that the viscosity is measured using a Brookfield LVT viscometer, it appears that the applicant may have intended to recite “mPa*s”,
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.
Claim 19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mPa/s” in claim 19 is used by the claim to mean “viscosity,” while the accepted meaning is “mPa*s.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) in view of Guan et al., “Sustainable Multiscale High-Haze Transparent Cellulose Fiber Film via a Biomimetic Approach”, ACS Material Letters, 2022, (hereinafter “Guan”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 1: He et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery coating separator, which corresponds to the claims secondary battery coated separator because lithium-ion batteries are secondary batteries. He et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery coating separator comprising a polyolefin base membrane and a coating layer formed on the polyolefin base film (Claim 9 and 10, paragraph [0053]- [0054], [0063]- [0064]). He et al. further discloses a coating slurry comprising cellulose-based biological material including cellulose microfibers, cellulose nanofibers, cellulose nanocrystals or a combination (paragraph [0012]). The dispersant based on the He et al. teachings, discloses that “by adjusting the cellulose content, the type and size range of the fillers, as well as the type and amounts of known additives, the resulting slurry can effectively prevent self-aggregation and sedimentation of the fillers” (paragraph [0052]). He et al. does not disclose the coating layer as a continuous phase formed from chain-entangled cellulose nanofibers and dispersed phase formed from cellulose microfibers.
Guan discloses a multiscale cellulose fiber structure in which cellulose nanofibers form an interconnected/intertwined cellulose-nanofiber network and cellulose microfibers are distributed within that network (Page 2, col. 2). The interconnected/intertwined cellulose nanofiber network corresponds to the claimed continuous phase formed from a chain-entangles cellulose nanofibers and the cellulose microfibers distributed within the network correspond to the claimed dispersed phase formed from cellulose microfibers.
Guan is analogous prior art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention. The claimed invention is directed to a cellulose based coating layer having a morphology including a continuous phase formed form chain-entangled cellulose nanofibers and a dispersed phase formed from cellulose microfibers. Guan addresses a related problem by forming a uniform and mechanically strong multiscale cellulose fiber network using cellulose nanofiber and cellulose microfibers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cellulose-containing coating layer of He et al. to include the multiscale cellulose fiber network taught by Guan because Guan teaches that introducing cellulose microfibers into a cellulose nanofiber network provide multiscale cellulose structure having improved mechanical strength and toughness. See Guan Page 2, col. 1.
Regarding Claim 2: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al. further discloses that the cellulose nanofibers have a width of less than 200 nm (paragraph [0072]), which is within or overlaps the claimed range of 20- 200 nm.
Therefore, He et al. teaches the limitation of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al. further discloses that the auxiliary agent used in the aqueous coating slurry may comprise carboxymethyl cellulose or derivatives (claim 5).
Carboxymethyl cellulose reads on the recited dispersant because it is used in the aqueous cellulose fiber coating composition as a stabilizing, viscosity adjusting and dispersion assisting auxiliary. Therefore, claim 7 is obvious by He et al. in view of Guan et al.
Regarding Claim 10: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al further discloses that the coating layer has a thickness of about 0.2 to about 10 μm (claim 13), which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 μm.
Therefore, claim 10 is obvious over He et al. in view of Guan et al.
Regarding Claim 12: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al further discloses that the polyolefin base film comprises polyethylene, polypropylene or a combination thereof (claim 10, paragraph [0002]).
Polyethylene and polypropylene are expressly included among the polymers recited in claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is obvious by He et al. in view of Guan et al.
Regarding Claim 14: He et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium battery coated separator comprising: providing a polyolefin base film, applying aqueous coating slurry to the base film, drying the slurry to form a coating layer, applying the coating to one or both surfaces and , using, dipping, blade, gravure, roller, wire bar, or spay coating techniques (claim 14-16, paragraph [0025]- [0029]). He et al. further discloses that the aqueous slurry contains cellulose nanofibers, cellulose microfibers, and an auxiliary agent that may comprise carboxymethyl cellulose (claim 1-5, paragraph [0010], [0030]).
He et al. does not disclose the coating layer as a continuous phase formed from chain-entangled cellulose nanofibers and dispersed phase formed from cellulose microfibers.
Guan discloses introducing cellulose microfibers into a network formed by high aspect ratio cellulose nanofibers, wherein the cellulose nanofibers are intertwined with one another and form a uniform three dimensional network (Fig. 1-2, Page 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coating method of He et al. using the multiscale fiber arrangement of Guan because Guan teaches that the intertwined cellulose nanofiber network improves bonding, strength and uniformity of the film.
Regarding Claim 16: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set for the above. He et al. further discloses an aqueous slurry and preparing the cellulose biological material as an aqueous solution (claim 1 and 6). Because claim 16 recited water or a mixed solvent of water and a higher boiling organic solvent, the express disclosure of water satisfies the first recite alternative.
Therefore, claim 16 is obvious by He et al. in view of Guan et al.
Claims 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20170222252 A1).
Regarding Claim 11: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al further discloses that the coating compositions includes a filler (claim 1) and that the filer may comprise inorganic particles, including alumina, boehmite, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, silica, titanium oxide, barium sulfate, calcium carbonate, and related inorganic material (claim 3-4, paragraph [0013], [0043]).
Additionally, Lee discloses adding inorganic particles to a cellulose nanofiber dispersed solution and identifies SiO2, Al2O3, TiO2, BaTiO3, CaCO3, MgO, and ZrO as suitable particles (paragraph [0062]- [0063]). Therefore, claim 11 is obvious by He et al. in view of Guan et al. and Lee et al.
Regarding Claim 13: He et al. discloses the separator as set for the above.
Lee further discloses an electrochemical element, including a lithium secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a cellulose nanofiber separator combined with the electrodes (abstract, paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated the coated separator of He et al. in the lithium secondary battery of Lee because He et al. expressly identifies the coated separator as a lithium battery separator and Lee teaches the conventional arrangement of such a separator between the positive and the negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 17: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 14. He et al. further discloses that the aqueous coating composition comprise carboxymethyl cellulose. (claim 5) He et al. does not disclose that the dispersant is used in an amount of 0.1-10 wt% based on the total weight of the coating composition.
Lee discloses adding a dispersant in an amount of 0.1-10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of an aqueous electrode composition (paragraph [0060]). Lee further teaches preparing the composition adding 1 wt% dispersant to distilled water before incorporating the remaining components (paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating composition of He et al. to include the dispersant amount taught by Lee because Lee teaches that such amount provides a uniform dispersion of the components during the preparation of the aqueous composition. The combination involves the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar composition for the same purpose. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20190237731 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. He et al. does not disclose the average cellulose nanofiber aspect ratio of 50-3000.
Park discloses a high aspect ratio of the small diameter fibers, including cellulose nanofibers, having an aspect ratio of 50 or greater and 100 and greater (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select cellulose nanofibers having an aspect ratio of at least 50 as taught by Park, for use in the coating of He et al. because Park reaches that increasing the aspect ratios increases the number of contact points and binding strength between the fibers and improving the strength. (See Park [0040])
Regarding Claim 4: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. He et al. does not disclose that the cellulose microfibers have an average diameter of 0.2-10 μm.
Park discloses that the large diameter fibers may have an average diameter of about 200 nm or greater, including ranges extending from 100 nm to 10 μm, which reads on the claimed average diameter (paragraph [0035]- [0036]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an average microfiber diameter within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization to obtain the desired balance of air permeability and mechanical strength taught by Park.
Regarding Claim 6: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al. does not disclose that the cellulose microfibers are used in the amount of 5-200 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cellulose nanofibers.
Park discloses a porous film comprising small diameter fibers and large diameter fibers., wherein the large diameter fibers are present in the amount of 5-60 wt%, based on the total weight of the small diameter fiber and the large diameter fibers (paragraph [0022], [0024]). The disclosed amount of 5-60 wt% large diameter fibers corresponds to approximately 5.3-150 parts by weight of larger diameter cellulose fibers per 100 parts by weight of the small diameter cellulose nanofibers. The relationship was calculated as:
L
a
r
g
e
f
i
b
e
r
s
S
m
a
l
l
f
i
b
e
r
s
×
100
=
w
t
%
L
a
r
g
e
f
i
b
e
r
s
100
-
w
t
%
L
a
r
g
e
f
i
b
e
r
s
×
100
Example calculation for 5 wt% of large diameter fibers:
5
100
-
5
×
100
=
5.26
Example calculation for 60 wt% of large diameter fibers:
60
100
-
60
×
100
=
150
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the amount of cellulose microfibers and nanofibers in the coating composition of He et al. within the proportions of Park because Park teaches that maintaining the diameter amount improved the mechanical properties and air permeability. (See Park paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 18: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 14. He et al. does not disclose that the coating composition has a solid content of 1-20 wt %.
Park discloses that the total amount of the large diameter fibers and the small diameter fibers in the coating composition may be about 0.2 wt % to about 20 wt %.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the solid content within the claimed range of 1-20 wt % for the coating composition of He because Park recognized the solids concentration as a result-effective variable affecting viscosity, drying productivity, tensile strength and uniform coating formation. The selection of a value within the overlapping range would have amount to routine optimization of a known process parameter.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kumamoto et al. (US9243128 B2).
Regarding Claim 5: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. He et al. does not disclose that the cellulose microfibers have an average aspect ratio of 10-500,
Kumamoto discloses cellulose microfibers having an average ratio of 10-1,000, more preferably 10-500 (col. 5, line 14-16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the cellulose microfiber having an average aspect ratio of 10-50 as taught by Kumamoto in the coating composition of He et al., because Kumamoto teaches that having this aspect ratios improve the dispersibility of the cellulose microfibers and the mechanical strength. (See Kumamoto col. 5, line 14- 20).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US20110303881 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al. does not disclose that the carboxymethyl cellulose has a degree of substitution of 0.5-10.
Bae discloses carboxymethyl cellulose for use in a slurry composition for an energy-storage device electrode, wherein the carboxymethyl cellulose has a degree of substitution of 0.7-0.9 (claim 3, claim 6, paragraph [0013], [0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the degree of substitution of Bae and incorporate in the aqueous cellulose coating composition of He et al. because Bae teaches that having that degree of substitution improves the properties of a slurry coated component for an energy storage device.
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites a coating composition viscosity of 50-500 mPa/s. The instant specification consistently described the viscosity as being measured using a Brookfield LVT viscometer, which measure the dynamic viscosity of fluid compositions. Therefore, the claimed viscosity is interpreted as the dynamic viscosity (mPa*s).
He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. He et al. does not disclose that the coating composition has a viscosity of 50-500 mPa*s.
Bae discloses carboxymethyl cellulose for use in a slurry composition for an energy storage device, where the carboxymethyl has a viscosity of 100-500 cP in a 1 wt% solution (claim 1, claim 4, paragraph [0011], [0014]). Because 1 cP is equal to 1 mPa*s. Bae disclosed that the viscosity corresponds to 100-500 mPa*s, which overlaps the claimed range of 50-500 mPa*s.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the viscosity of the aqueous coating composition of He et al. in view of the teaching of Bae because Bae teaches that controlling slurry viscosity improves dispersion stability and coating uniformity. Optimizing viscosity for these known purposes would have been a routine optimization of a recognized result effective variable to obtain the predictable result taught by Bae. See Bae [0033], [0036]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (US20160002461 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. He et al. does not disclose that the dispersant is usen in an amount of 10-150 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cellulose microfibers.
Tsuji discloses a composition comprising cellulose and a dispersant. Tsuji teaches that the amount of dispersant may be 5 to 200 parts by mass, more preferably 10 to 150 parts by mass and particularly 20 to 100 parts by mass, relative to parts by mass of cellulose (paragraph [0276]). Tsuji further teaches those cellulose materials includes at least one from the group consisting of cellulose nanofiber, micro fibrillated cellulose, and pulp from a natural fiber raw material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of dispersant taught by Tsuji in the aqueous cellulose coating composition of He et al. because Tsuji teaches that the disclosed amount effectively disperses cellulose and maintaining the properties such as high strength and low thermal expansion. (See Tsuji [0274], [0281])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN107611320 A) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Lan et al. (CN112239662A). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 15: He et al. discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in claim 14. He et al. does not disclose that the cellulose coating composition is prepared by introducing the dispersant, the cellulose microfibers and the cellulose nanofibers to a solvent in order.
Lan discloses preparing a cellulose containing coating composition including a solvent, a dispersant, cellulose microfibers, and cellulose nanofiber (abstract, claim 2, paragraph [0006], [0007]). Lan further discloses that the components are introduced into the solvent in a different sequence. (paragraph [0009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the order in which the known components are introduced into the solvent because Lan employ the same components to prepare a cellulose coating composition. Selecting a different order of addition of the same known ingredients constitutes of a routine optimization of a known mixing process. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), See also In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights