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Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/2/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the LEE reference only teaches applying water pressure to make a cellulose acetate (CA) membrane porous. The reference does not teach pore alignment between the CA pores and the polypropylene (PP) pores. However, the purpose of the LEE reference is to make a separator membrane porous. The pores are made by water pressure which indicates that the pores are continuous through the separator membrane. The combination falls apart if the pore channels in the PP and CA not aligned, because the stated benefit is derived from the porosity of the membrane. The combination suggests a double layer separator that is porous, and it is reasonable to expect at least some of the pores to be aligned to allow for channels to form.
Applicant further argues that the structure that results from applying water pressure from the PP side is vertically aligned pores in the CA with each pore in the CA aligned. The examiner is not persuaded that the water pressure technique described in LEE would make non-vertical pores. The KANG reference previously cited as pertinent prior art states that pores formed by water pressure are have uniform and linear shape [0064]. However, the examiner would agree that the pores created using the LEE technique would be random (some aligned and some unaligned) with the pores in the PP. Each pore in CA would not necessarily have a respective pore in PP, although at least some must align to obtain the desired porous membrane. However, the claim does not require each pore in CA to be vertical and aligned with a corresponding pore in the PP. The claim only requires a plurality (more than one) continuous path through the PP/CA with a plurality of pores (not each/every pore channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 (PP) with pore size of 200Å column 6 lines 6-24 and column 18 lines 24-34. The cellulose acetate (CA) 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 when making a coated microporous membrane but does not expressly teach making pore channels in the CA. 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. In order for the membrane separator to be porous, at least some (a plurality) of the pores in the CA and PP must align.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights