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
The amendment filed 1/20/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 9-12 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 11,and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASKIER (US 4,438,185) in view of LEE et al. “Porous Cellulose Acetate by Specific Solvents with Water Pressure Treatment for Applications to Separator and Membranes” (Feb. 2018)
Regarding claim 7,
TASKIER teaches microporous membrane with a polymer coating such as cellulose acetate that can be used in a battery abstract. The microporous membrane can be polypropylene with pore size of 200Å column 6 lines 6-24 and column 18 lines 24-34. The cellulose acetate is deposited on the membrane and can be stored dry column 8 lines 1-49. The membranes can be used in any primary or secondary battery column 24 lines 54-63.
TASKIER teaches coating the cellulose acetate but does not expressly teach making pore channels. However, LEE teaches making a cellulose acetate membrane porous by water pressure abstract, and making the separator porous improves battery efficiency Introduction. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the coated cellulose acetate of TASKIER porous to improve battery efficiency. LEE uses co-solvents of acetone and NMP and notes that the remaining solvent acts as a plasticizer during pore generation abstract and page 631 top left column.
Regarding claim 11,
The references teach coating cellulose acetate and forming pores by water pressure but does not expressly teach the direction of water pressure. However, when using a porous substrate, the water pressure will necessarily flow through the pores and make continuous channels regardless of which side pressure is applied. Accordingly, the structure of the double layer separator is both porous and has continuous pores through the two layers. Therefore, the overall structure does not change based on the direction of the water pressure.
Regarding claim 12,
LEE teaches the water pressure can be 1 to 8 bar experimental which overlaps the claimed range of 2-20 bar. The claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASKIER (US 4,438,185) in view of LEE et al. “Porous Cellulose Acetate by Specific Solvents with Water Pressure Treatment for Applications to Separator and Membranes” (Feb. 2018) further in view of KAZEMI et al. “Investigating Separator to Improve Performance of Flat-Plate Microbial Fuel Cells” (2012) and CHOWDHURY et al. (US 5,798,180).
Regarding claim 8,
TASKIER teaches a battery separator that includes a porous polypropylene and cellulose acetate treated with water pressure. The reference does not teach using such a separator in a microbial fuel cell. However, KAZEMI teaches that separators such as “Celgard” can be used in microbial fuel cells Fig. 1 and right column. The reference does not specify what Celgard is used. However, CHOWDHURY teaches that known Celgard brands include Celgard 3559 which is a cellulose acetate-coated polypropylene column 5 lines 5-7. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separator described in modified TASKIER in a microbial fuel cell as a known “battery” type that uses similar separators such as Celgard.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TASKIER (US 4,438,185) in view of LEE et al. “Porous Cellulose Acetate by Specific Solvents with Water Pressure Treatment for Applications to Separator and Membranes” (Feb. 2018) further in view of HONG et al. “Highly porous and thermally stable cellulose acetate to utilize hydrated glycerin” (July 2020).
Regarding claim 9,
HONG similarly teaches making pores in cellulose acetate by water pressure and further includes a plasticizer such as glycerin abstract. The additives such as glycerin allow for efficient pore generation that is easily adjusted, low-cost and environmentally friendly introduction. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a glycerin plasticizer as a low cost additive for efficient pore generation in cellulose acetate by water pressure.
Regarding claim 10,
The loading amount of glycerin can be 1:0.1 to 1:0.6 page 84. The claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KANG et al. (US 2017/0271637) similarly teaches making a porous material with water pressure. Cellulose acetate is not listed as a porous material [0025] but is used in the example 1 [0066]. The reference further notes that the porous polymer can be made on a porous support [0024] and [0061].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712