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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the term “backweb” is defined in the art to be a sheet or a substrate, as evidenced by [0047] of Mittal et al. (US PGPub 2017/0047615 A1).
The Examiner is interpreting the term “a relaxed state capability” set forth in Claim 45 to be the change from a relaxed state (e.g. the battery separator prior to being compressed) to a non-relaxed state (e.g. the compressed battery separator) in light of P19, 29-P20, 8).
The Examiner notes that Claim 4 is mistakenly marked as withdrawn in the claim set dated February 17, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 45-46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022), and further in view of Naiha et al. (US PGPub 2017/0294636 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 48, Böhnstedt discloses in Figs. 1-2 a battery separator (C2, L28-37) comprising:
a porous membrane backweb (1, porous membrane sheet) comprising a first surface, and a second surface on an opposite side from said first surface (C3, L22-29 and 40-43);
at least one array of ribs (2, 3, 3’) comprising a first plurality of ribs (2) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) extending from said second surface (C3, L44-48);
wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (2) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’) that are disposed on said second surface (C3, L44-48 and C2, L38-56).
However, Böhnstedt does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery separator comprises a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, and wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses an exemplary separator (200) comprising a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, and wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped (Figs. 7A-7B, P19).
Specifically, the exemplary separator (200) in Figs. 7A-7B of the instant specification comprises at least one array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (204) extending from said first surface, and a second plurality of ribs (206) extending from said second surface, wherein at least a portion of said first plurality of ribs (204) are not disposed opposite of any ribs from said second plurality of ribs (206) that are disposed on said second surface (Figs. 7A-7B), wherein the said porous membrane backweb may be polyethylene comprising a thickness in the range of 125 to 250 µm (P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1)
Böhnstedt discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb (1) is preferably made from polyethylene (C3, L22-27) having a thickness of 0.25 mm (C3, L56-60), which falls within the suitable range disclosed by the instant specification, and further discloses wherein the battery separator comprising the porous membrane backweb (1) is compressible (C2, L10-27).
Thus, said porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that disclosed by the instant specification and therefore Böhnstedt discloses a relaxed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is planar and a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped, as evidenced by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-P26, L3 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Böhnstedt discloses wherein said porous membrane backweb (1) is preferably made from polyethylene with the addition of fillers (C3, L22-27) and may be manufactured in a conventional manner (C4, L32-43).
However, Böhnstedt does not disclose wherein the porous membrane backweb comprises a residual oil content.
Naiha teaches a battery separator comprising a porous membrane backweb preferably made from polyethylene with the addition of fillers ([0064], [0066]).
Naiha further teaches wherein the method of manufacturing the porous membrane backweb comprises a processing oil ([0066], [0100]).
Specifically, Naiha teaches wherein the porous membrane backweb may be manufactured to comprise a residual oil content in order to increase the ionic conductivity of the battery separator and lower the electrical resistance (ER) of the battery separator. As such, battery separators having a reduced residual oil content can have increased efficiency ([0101]).
For example, Naiha teaches wherein the residual oil content is less than 20%, and in some particular embodiments less than 5% ([0101]), which reads on the instantly claimed ranges of less than 20%, less than about 19%, less than about 18%, less than about 17%, less than about 16%, less than about 15%, less than about 14%, less than about 13%, less than about 12%, less than about 11%, less than about 10%, less than about 9%, less than about 8%, less than about 7%, less than about 6%, or less than about 5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt to comprise a residual oil content in the range taught by Naiha in order to increase the ionic conductivity of the battery separator of Böhnstedt and lower the electrical resistance (ER) of the battery separator, thereby increasing the efficiency of the battery separator.
Regarding Claims 3-5, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) are equidistantly spaced apart (Figs. 1-2, C2, L49-56 of Böhnstedt) and wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3 of Böhnstedt’) are not equidistantly spaced apart (Figs. 1-2, C2, L49-56 of Böhnstedt) and therefore modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein said array of ribs (2, 3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) comprising said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) and said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) are not equidistantly spaced apart (Figs. 1-2, C2, L49-56 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claims 9-10, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) are spaced apart at a first distance; and said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) are spaced apart at a second distance, wherein said first distance is not equal to said second distance (Figs. 1-2, C2, L49-59 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said array of ribs (2, 3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) comprise a first of one or more ribs of said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) alternating with one or more ribs of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) (Figs. 1-2, C2, L49-59 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) is parallel to said second plurality of ribs (Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) is spaced apart at a distance of 13 mm (C3, L61-64 of Böhnstedt), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed ranges of approximately 4 mm to approximately 18 mm, approximately 5 mm to approximately 16 mm, and approximately 6 mm to approximately 14 mm.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt:
a first plane formed by tips of said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) (C3, L40-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt);
a second plane formed by tips of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) (C3, L40-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt).
Modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein an overall thickness in said relaxed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plate is 1.3 mm (C3, L40-C4, L8) and therefore modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane is necessary and inherently at least greater than 0 mm and less than 1.3 mm, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least approximately 500 µm, and no more than 2.0 mm.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein compressability of the battery separator is adjusted in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use (C2, L28-37 of Böhnstedt).
Moreover, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator can be influenced by the distance of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) from each other (C3, L68-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the battery separator of modified Böhnstedt to have an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane that falls within the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the battery separator desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance of the second plurality of ribs from each other, as disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, such that an overall thickness in said compressed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plane that falls within the range of at least approximately 500 µm, and no more than 2.0 mm, as such may be adjusted so as to influence the compressability of the battery separator, in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt
a first plane formed by tips of said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) (C3, L40-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt);
a second plane formed by tips of said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) (C3, L40-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt);
an overall thickness in said relaxed state being the distance between said first plane and said second plate is 1.3 mm (C3, L456-60 of Böhnstedt), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of no more than approximately 3.0 mm.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) comprise a first rib height of 0.75 mm (C3, L56-60 of Böhnstedt), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of approximately 200 µm to approximately 1.5 mm.
Regarding Claim 45, modified Böhnstedt discloses a compressible battery (C2, L28-37 and 57-66 of Böhnstedt), wherein compressability of the battery separator is adjusted in order to compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use (C2, L28-37 of Böhnstedt).
Specifically, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator can be influenced by the distance of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) from each other (C3, L68-C4, L8 of Böhnstedt).
However, modified Böhnstedt remains silent regarding a change in thickness of the battery separator from a relaxed state to a compressed state and consequently does not disclose wherein the compressible battery separator is provided with at least a 12% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability.
Though, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressability of the battery separator should greater than 1 to 2% in order to sufficiently compensate for the above-mentioned variations in thickness of electrode plates and battery separators (C2, L10-27 of Böhnstedt) and therefore modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein the compressible battery separator should be provided with a greater than 2% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability, which encompasses the instantly claimed range of at least 12%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance of the second plurality of ribs from each other in order to form a battery a compressible battery separator provided with a change in thickness from a relaxed state capability in the encompassing portion of the range disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully compensate for variations of thickness that occur while maintaining constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacturing and impairing their life expectancy under normal conditions of use, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein the battery separator is inserted into battery container; the battery separator and electrode plates are squeezed together to such an extent that they can be slid into appropriate compartments and firmly clamped within (C4, L44-53 of Böhnstedt).
However, modified Böhnstedt does not disclose the pressure required to clamp the battery separator and electrode plates within and consequently such is not particularly limited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the compressible battery separator of modified Böhnstedt, such that it is provided with at least a 12% change in thickness from a relaxed state capability, as such is not particularly limited, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully squeeze the battery separator and the electrode plates together to such an extent that they can be slid into appropriate compartments and firmly clamped within, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Regarding Claim 46, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use (C2, L28-37 of Böhnstedt).
Specifically, modified Böhnstedt discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) are spaced apart at a distance of 13 mm from each other and wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) are spaced apart 2.5 mm from each other (C3, L61-64 of Böhnstedt), which falls outside the instantly claimed ranges of four millimeters to six millimeters and four millimeters to six millimeters respectively.
Consequently, modified Böhnstedt does not disclose in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-2 wherein the first plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters to six millimeters from each other, and the second plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters to six millimeters from each other.
However, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein one can vary the distance apart of the first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) and the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) in order to adjust the compressibility and the recovery force (C2, L67-C3, L2 of Böhnstedt).
For example, Böhnstedt discloses wherein the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) may be spaced apart about 1.2 to 4 mm from each other (C3, L2-7 of Böhnstedt), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of four millimeters to six millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second plurality of ribs to be spaced apart four millimeters from each other, as disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Modified Böhnstedt further discloses wherein a ratio between the distance between one group of the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) and one of the first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) is 1:2 to 1:11 (Figs. 1-2 and C3, L12-16 of Böhnstedt).
The Examiner notes that when the second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) are spaced apart four millimeters from each other, the first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) being spaced apart six millimeters from each other achieves to a ratio of 1:1.5, which mathematically equates to a ratio of 1:2 when rounded to the same number of significant figures disclosed in modified Böhnstedt.
In light of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the at least one array of ribs to have a ratio of 1:2, as disclosed by modified Böhnstedt, such that the first plurality of ribs are spaced apart six millimeters from each other and the second plurality of ribs are spaced apart four millimeters from each other, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a battery separator that achieves a compressibility and recovery fore in such a way that it is sufficient to compensate for variations in thickness that occur, and yet maintain constantly the necessary distance for the supply of acid without complicating manufacture and impairing life expectancy under normal use, as desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhnstedt et al. (US Patent No. 4,927,722, cited on the IDS dated July 4, 2022) in view of Naiha et al. (US PGPub 2017/0294636 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Mittal et al. (US PGPub 2017/0047615 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein, if desired, it is possible to provide further ribs in the intermediate spaces between said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) extending from said first surface and/or said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) extending from said second surface (C4, L22-26 of Böhnstedt).
However, modified Böhnstedt does not disclose mini cross-ribs disposed on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface, wherein said mini cross-ribs have a height between 25 microns to 75 microns.
Mittal teaches in Fig. 1B a battery separator comprising a porous membrane backweb and an array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a first surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a positive electrode plate and a second plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a second surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a negative electrode plate, wherein the second plurality of ribs are smaller than the first plurality of ribs ([0044], [0051]).
Mittal further teaches wherein the battery separator may comprise mini cross-ribs disposed on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface in order to form a pattern that allows acid into the battery separator quickly while simultaneously allowing air to escape out of the battery separator while at the same times the mini cross-ribs are not so large as to interfere with the battery separator’s overall contact with electrode plates ([0102]), wherein said mini cross-ribs may have a height of 0.05 mm ([0045]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 25 microns to 75 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form mini cross-ribs on said first surface, said second surface, or both of said first surface and said second surface of modified Böhnstedt, wherein said mini cross-ribs have a height of 0.05 mm, as taught by Mittal, in order to form a pattern that allows acid into the battery separator of modified Böhnstedt quickly while simultaneously allowing air to escape out of the battery separator while at the same times the mini cross-ribs are not so large as to interfere with the battery separator’s overall contact with electrode plates.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Böhnstedt discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) are parallel to one another (Figs. 1-2 of Böhnstedt).
Moreover, modified Böhnstedt discloses wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) face a positive electrode plate and consequently wherein said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) face a negative electrode plate (C3, L40-56 and C2, L14-21 of Böhnstedt) and further wherein said first plurality of ribs (2 of Böhnstedt) has a height greater than said second plurality of ribs (3, 3’ of Böhnstedt) (Figs. 1-2 and C3, L56-60 of Böhnstedt).
However, modified Böhnstedt does not explicitly disclose wherein said first plurality of ribs is parallel to a separator machine direction.
Mittal teaches in Fig. 1B a battery separator comprising a porous membrane backweb and an array of ribs comprising a first plurality of ribs (longitudinally-orientated ribs) extending from a first surface of the porous membrane backweb that face a positive electrode plate, wherein each of said first plurality of ribs are parallel to one another and wherein said first plurality of ribs is parallel to a separator machine direction ([0044], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said first plurality of ribs of modified Böhnstedt to be parallel to a separator machine direction, as taught by Mittal, as such is a known configuration in the art for a plurality of ribs extending from a first surface of a porous membrane backweb that faces a positive electrode plate and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the first plurality of ribs desired by modified Böhnstedt.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that Claim 4 is labeled as withdrawn in the most recent set of claims but should be labeled as previously presented. Claim 4 is directed to the elected invention and therefore has been addressed in the rejection of record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended Claim 1 and canceled Claim 47 regarding the plasticizer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that a plasticizer is no longer required by the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the Office took the position that because “the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that of the claimed invention, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt would necessarily and inherently have a wavy structure, as evidenced by Figs. 7A-7B, P6, L124-25, P25, L17-26, L3, and Table 1 of the instant specification. The Applicant submits that the Office’s reasoning shows a degree of hindsight not merited by the disclosure of Böhnstedt.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no modification or teaching was made to the structure of Böhnstedt and therefore the argument of hindsight is erroneous.
As set forth in the rejection above, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is substantially the same as that disclosed by the instant specification and therefore the instant specification has been relied on as evidence to show that the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt would necessarily and inherently achieve the claimed effects (e.g. the structure of the battery separator when in a relaxed state and in a different compressed state).
The Examiner further notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention. So long as the structure of the battery separator is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
Next, the Applicant argues the Office’s dismissal of Böhnstedt’s warnings for corrugated separator shapes as simply a matter of degree. For instance, the Office’s narrow interpretation – that Böhnstedt only teaches away from contact-inducing waves – ignores the broader technical warning against corrugated shapes that lack restoring force or complicate assembly (as opposed to only warning against destructive oxidation from contact). At the very least, the above would cast doubt on even a very skilled artisan’s ability to derive the presently claimed invention from the disclosure of Böhnstedt. Accordingly, the high burden to establish inherency cannot be met.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously, Böhnstedt teaches away from a battery separator having a form similar to that of corrugated paper to a degree in which the porous membrane backweb comes into contact with the positive electrode plate (C1, L43-57).
However, the Examiner notes that the claim recites “wherein the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure when warped” and therefore a degree of waviness or warping is not required.
For example, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt may be compressed to a degree that the porous membrane backweb has a wavy structure in which the porous membrane backweb does not come into contact with the positive electrode plate, i.e. as shown in Fig. 7B of the instant specification.
In other words, the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt may be configured to read on the claimed invention without having the disadvantages taught by DE-PS 17 71227.
The Examiner further notes that the Applicant has not providing any showing of how the structure of the porous membrane backweb of Böhnstedt is different from that of the claimed invention such that it would not necessarily and inherently achieve a wavy structure when in a different compressed state wherein said porous membrane backweb is warped.
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights