DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, 30-32 are pending in the application, claims 15, 17-19, 21, 23-25 and 30 have been withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s election. Claims 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22, 26-29 and 33 are cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 9, and 31, filed on 11/17/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The claim objections made of record in the office action mailed 5/15/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 11/17/2025.
The double patenting rejection made of record in the office action mailed 5/15/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 11/17/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. §102/103 rejection of claim 9 over Song et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0065105) made of record in the office action mailed 5/15/2025, page 6, paragraph 12 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 11/17/2025.
REJECTIONS
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0065105).
Regarding claim 1, Song et al. teach a multilayer sorbent polymer membrane (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising at least one layer of the polymeric membrane including a polymer and sorbent materials (abstract, page 1, paragraph [0007]). The membrane comprises interconnecting pores having the porosity of 55 to 75% which indicates that the at least one layer of the polymeric membrane is a reticulated film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 8, paragraph [0078]). The sorbent materials are nanosized with a D50 of about 0.1 to 1000 nm (page 5, paragraph [0051]). The polymer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride with a melt viscosity of 50 kPa at 100 s-1 and 232oC (page 11, paragraph [0112]). The examiner takes the position that a solution viscosity of 100 to 10,000 cp measured at 5 wt% in NMP or at 2 wt% in water, at room temperature would inherently be present as the melt viscosity is within the range disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. The sorbent materials comprise fumed silica (page 5, paragraph [0052]) having a surface area of about 1 to about 50 m2/g, about 50 to about 100 m2/g, or about 100 to about 1,000 m2/g which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 1 to 1000 m2/g (page 5, paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0052]).
The product-by-process limitation “the coating or film is a solution cast coating or film” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the coating or film. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the reticulated porous coating or film of Song et al. possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed reticulated porous coating or film.
Regarding claim 2, Song et al. teach wherein the pores have an average pore size in the range of 5 to 320 Angstroms which is below 500 nm required by the claim (figure 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Song et al. teach wherein the polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (page 11, paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 10, Song et al. teach wherein the nano sized sorbent materials comprise fumed silica (page 5, paragraphs [0051], [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Song et al. teach wherein the least one layer of the polymeric membrane includes a matrix polymer of about 0.1 to about 70 wt% and sorbent materials of about 5 to about 90 wt% which read on Applicant’s claimed weight percent of resin to nanoparticles is from 80:20 to 10:90 (page 3, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 31, Song et al. teach an article (page 2, paragraph [0012]) comprising a multilayer sorbent polymer membrane (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising at least one layer of the polymeric membrane including a polymer and sorbent materials (abstract, page 1, paragraph [0007]). The membrane comprises interconnecting pores having the porosity of 55 to 75% which indicates that the at least one layer of the polymeric membrane is a reticulated film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 8, paragraph [0078]). The sorbent materials are nanosized with a D50 of about 0.1 to 1000 nm (page 5, paragraph [0051]). The polymer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride with a melt viscosity of 50 kPa at 100 s-1 and 232oC (page 11, paragraph [0112]). The examiner takes the position that a solution viscosity of 100 to 10,000 cp measured at 5 wt% in NMP or at 2 wt% in water, at room temperature would inherently be present as the melt viscosity is within the range disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. The sorbent materials comprise fumed silica (page 5, paragraph [0052]) having a surface area of about 1 to about 50 m2/g, about 50 to about 100 m2/g, or about 100 to about 1,000 m2/g (page 5, paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0052]).
Regarding claim 32, Song et al. teach an article (page 2, paragraph [0012]) comprising a multilayer sorbent polymer membrane (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising at least one layer of the polymeric membrane including a polymer and sorbent materials (abstract, page 1, paragraph [0007]). The membrane comprises interconnecting pores having the porosity of 55 to 75% which indicates that the at least one layer of the polymeric membrane is a reticulated film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 8, paragraph [0078]). The sorbent materials are nanosized with a D50 of about 0.1 to 1000 nm (page 5, paragraph [0051]). The polymer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride with a melt viscosity of 50 kPa at 100 s-1 and 232oC (page 11, paragraph [0112]). The examiner takes the position that a solution viscosity of 100 to 10,000 cp measured at 5 wt% in NMP or at 2 wt% in water, at room temperature would inherently be present as the melt viscosity is within the range disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. The sorbent materials comprise fumed silica (page 5, paragraph [0052]) having a surface area of about 1 to about 50 m2/g, about 50 to about 100 m2/g, or about 100 to about 1,000 m2/g which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 1 to 1000 m2/g (page 5, paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0052]). The article comprises a separator in an electrochemical device (page 2, paragraph [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0065105).
Song et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Song et al. teach wherein the resin can be acrylic polymers such as polyacrylic acid or polyvinylidene fluoride (page 4, paragraph [0041]).
One would look to use the polyacrylic acid of Song et al. as the resin because polyacrylic acid and polyvinylidene fluoride are functionally equivalent (page 4, paragraph [0041]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0065105) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (US Patent Application No. 2015/0030906).
Song et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, Song et al. fail to teach wherein the nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of chopped aramid fibers, polyetherether ketone fibers, polyetherketone ketone fibers, PTFE fibers and mixture thereof. However, Amin-Sanayei et al. teach a porous coating (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising a resin (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 2, paragraph [0029]) and nanoparticles (page 3, paragraphs [0040], [0044]), wherein the nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of polyetherether ketone fibers, polyetherketone ketone fibers and PTFE fibers (page 3, paragraphs [0041], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanoparticles of Amin-Sanayei et al. in the coating or film of Song et al. in order to provide sufficient mechanical properties (Amin-Sanayei et al., page 3, paragraph [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 of record have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the film of the present invention is not created through a melt process while Applicant’s use a solution casting process. It is the Examiner’s position that Song et al. teach a multilayer sorbent polymer membrane (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising at least one layer of the polymeric membrane including a polymer and sorbent materials (abstract, page 1, paragraph [0007]). The membrane comprises interconnecting pores having the porosity of 55 to 75% which indicates that the at least one layer of the polymeric membrane is a reticulated film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 8, paragraph [0078]). The sorbent materials are nanosized with a D50 of about 0.1 to 1000 nm (page 5, paragraph [0051]). The polymer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride with a melt viscosity of 50 kPa at 100 s-1 and 232oC (page 11, paragraph [0112]). The sorbent materials comprise fumed silica (page 5, paragraph [0052]) having a surface area of about 1 to about 50 m2/g, about 50 to about 100 m2/g, or about 100 to about 1,000 m2/g (page 5, paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0052]). The limitation “the coating or film is a solution cast coating or film” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. The argument stating that the properties of the film cannot be expected to be the same is unpersuasive because evidence has not been presented which shows that the coating or film of Song et al. is not the same as the claimed coating or film.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1/15/2026