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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 31-35 are have been amended. As such, Claims 1-12 and 28-35 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 32 and 33 directed to the hypothetical properties of a nonwoven fabric following an application of the binder of Claim 1 to a nonwoven fabric. Claims 34 and 35 recite structural details of a nonwoven fabric. However, none of Claims 32-35 are directed to a nonwoven fabric being a claimed feature. Rather, Claim 30, from which Claims 32-35 depend, only requires that if a hypothetical nonwoven fabric were available, then the binder would be capable of being applied to the nonwoven fabric. A nonwoven fabric is not positively recited. Claims 32-35 utilize claim language noting that “the binder is bindable to a nonwoven fabric;” however, a nonwoven fabric is not actually positively recited by the claims. As such, Claims 32-35 fail to further limit the aqueous CMC binder that they are directed to, and only define subject matter to a hypothetical material. Moreover, it is submitted that Claims 22-25, which were original claims that were actually directed to a nonwoven fabric embodiment, were non-elected in the Response filed December 22, 2025.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-6, 8, 11, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 105504169 to Wei (an English translation obtained from the Google Patents website is referenced herein) (“Wei”).
With regard to Claims 1, 3, 28, and 29, Wei discloses an adhesive for a lithium ion battery comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose polymer that is covalently grafted with sodium polyacrylate. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Wei discloses that the polymer composition is formed by dissolving 1.0 g of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose in 50 g of water to provide an aqueous solution, followed by the addition of acrylic acid monomer to graft the acrylic acid monomer onto the CMC, wherein the reaction takes place at a temperature of 55 degrees C. for 2 hours. Page 4, Example 1. Wei discloses that the ratio of monomer to CMC can be as low as 1:4. Page 4, Example 2. With regard to the limitation that the binder resists degradation of nonwoven fabrics in aqueous solutions, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. In this instance, no structural difference exists in Claim 1 from Wei. Wei discloses that their binder, which contains the recited ingredients of water, CMC, and a monomer, functions to provide strong adhesive force. Abstract. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that some amount of degradation resistance is within the scope of providing strong adhesive force. With regard to Claims 4, 30, and 31, the aqueous solution formed by the initial reaction of Example 2 of Wei is in liquid form and therefore capable of being sprayed, in general, or sprayed onto a nonwoven fabric. With regard to Claims 5 and 6, the dissolving 1.0 g of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose in 50 g of water to provide an aqueous solution, followed by the addition of acrylic acid monomer such that that the weight ratio of monomer to CMC is 1:4 as recited in Example 2 anticipates the ranged amounts of CMC being 0.1 to 70% by weight and monomer being 0.1 to 90% by weight. With regard to Claim 8, Wei discloses that a suitable initiator is potassium persulfate. Page 3. With regard to Claim 11, both CMC and polyacrylic acid are considered to be biodegradable materials. With regard to Claims 32-35, parent Claim 30 only requires that if a hypothetical nonwoven fabric were available, then the binder would be capable of being applied to the nonwoven fabric. Claim 30 does not positively recite or require a nonwoven fabric. Moreover, Claims 32-35 merely state that the binder is bindable to a nonwoven fabric, not that a nonwoven fabric is present. As such, Claims 32-35 fail to further limit the aqueous CMC binder that they are directed to, and only define subject matter to a hypothetical material.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei.
With regard to Claim 7, Wei discloses that the initiator is present in amount of 0.01:1 to 0.5:1 of the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose. Page 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide initiator in the composition disclosed by Wei in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0105949 to Oe et al. (“Oe”).
With regard to Claims 2, 9, and 10, Wei does not disclose using n-hydroxymethyl acrylamide monomer. Oe is also related to binder compositions useful in lithium-ion battery applications. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Oe teaches that n-hydroxymethyl acrylamide monomer is suitable as an addition monomer in the polymers used to form a binder composition. Paragraph [0019]. Oe teaches that acrylamide monomer provides a composition with improved toughness. Paragraph [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize n-hydroxymethyl acrylamide monomer in the binder composition disclosed by Wei in order to improve toughness of the composition, as shown to be known by Oe. With regard to Claims 9 and 10, Wei teaches that the reaction takes place at a temperature of 55 degrees C. for a period of time of 2 hours. Page 4, Example 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Oe, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0098452 to Hampson et al. (“Hampson”).
With regard to Claim 12, the combination of Wei with Oe does not disclose using polymer N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide which is not chemically bonded with the CMC. Hampson is also related to binder compositions that include sodium carboxymethyl cellulose. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Hampson teaches that a binder formulation can include polymerized acrylamide materials that are not chemically bound to the CMC, such as in a particulate form. Paragraphs [0025] and [0036]. Hampson teaches that inclusion of such particulate material can improve bonding strength. Paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide polymer N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide which is not chemically bonded with the CMC in the binder composition disclosed by Wei in view of Oe in order to provide improved bonding strength, as shown to be known in the art by Hampson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Claims 32-35 limit Claim 30 to various types of nonwoven fabric that the binder may be bound to. The Examiner disagrees. Claims 32-35 recite that the “binder is bindable to a nonwoven fabric.” A nonwoven fabric is not positively recited. So long as the adhesive of the prior art is capable of being bound to a nonwoven fabric, then the limitations of Claims 32-35 are satisfied by the prior art.
Applicant argues that Wei does not disclose use of the CMC/monomer binder for resisting degradation of nonwoven fabrics in aqueous solutions. The Examiner disagrees. First, “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.” M.P.E.P. 2111.02(II). The property of providing a feature to a nonwoven fabric does not result in a structural distinction to the combination of ingredients recited in Claim 1. Wei teaches that the same composition. Second, Wei discloses that their binder functions to provide strong adhesive force. Abstract. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that some amount of degradation resistance, even in an aqueous solution, is within the scope of providing strong adhesive force.
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 JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights