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 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.
Claims 1, 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshari et al (US 20200056332) in view of Turpin et al (US 20120156956).
Afshari is directed to high tensile strength paper suitable for use in electrochemical cells (Title). Afhari teaches the paper has fibrils comprising aramid fibrils. Afshari teaches the aramid fibrils have diameter of 10-2000 nanometers; length of 0.2 to 3 mm, surface area of 3 to 40 gsm and Canadian Standard Freeness of 1 to 10 mm (ABST).
Afshari does not teach an additional layer that can be a paper, spunbonded fibrous sheet or a fibrous or nonfibrous membrane.
Afshari teaches the aramid fibrils are polyparaphenylene terephthalamide (ABST), [0005], [0010], [0028], [0036], [0070].
Afshari teaches the fibrils are a blend of the fibrils comprising a polymer blend of 80 to 96 weight percent polyparaphenylene terephthalamide and 4 to 20 weight percent of polyvinylpyrrolidone [0005], [0010].
Turpin is directed to an electrical insulation material (Title). Turpin teaches a nonwoven paper directly fused on one or both sides with a nonwoven fabric wherein one or both of the nonwoven paper and nonwoven fabric are electrically insulating (ABST). Turpin teaches the nonwoven paper is formed of aramid fibers [0023]. Turpin teaches the nonwoven fabric can be a spun-bond fabric [0038].
Turpin teaches each of the layers can contribute to the unique properties of the laminate. Turpin teaches the nonwoven paper can provide long term heat resistance, electrical properties, and the nonwoven fabric can provide excellent resistance to tear which enhancing the overall strength, flexibility and aging [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an aramid paper of fibrils with a spunbond substrate layer motivated to improve the laminates resistance to tear and overall strength and flexibility.
As to claims 4-6, Afshari differs and does not measure the thermal shrinkage. As to claims 4-6, Afshari teaches the same structure, materials and composition and therefore it is reasonable to presume that properties are inherent to Afshari. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 7-10, Afshari teaches the diameter of the fibrils is 10-2000 nm and 10-1200 nm [0020]. Afshari teaches the diameter overlaps the claimed ranges.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claims 11-16, Afshari teaches the thickness is 10-40 micrometers [0014] which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshari et al (US 20200056332) in view of Turpin et al (US 20120156956) and in further view of Nitta et al (JP2004303940).
As to claims 17-20, Afshari does not teach a substrate layer.
Turpin teaches a spunbond nonwoven substrate layer but differs and does not disclose the thickness.
Nitta is directed to an electrolytic capacitor with a nonwoven separator [0003], [0020]-[0022]. Nitta teaches the thickness of the base material of the nonwoven separator is preferably 100 micron or less and a basis weight of 10-60 gsm. By setting the thickness in the range the tensile strength is enough to withstand separator breakage [0022].
Nitta teaches the spunbond method of making the nonwoven with aromatic polyamide resin containing polyparaphenylene terephthalamide is 50 micron thick with 25 gsm basis weight [0031].
As to claims 17-20, Nitta teaches the thickness is less than 100 micron and examples at 50 micron which is in the claimed ranges of 1-500 micron; 5-100 micron; 5-600 micron; 10-150 micron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a substrate with the claimed thickness motivated to provide the desired tensile strength for a electrochemical separator.
As to claims 21-23, Afshari teaches the basis weight of the fibril paper is 21-24 gsm (table 4). Afshari differs and does not teach a substrate layer.
Turpin teaches a substrate layer of a spunbond nonwoven but is not specific with regard to the basis weights. Turpin examples provide the basis weight of the nonwoven paper layer.
Nitta teaches a spunbond nonwoven has a basis weight of 10-60 gsm. If the basis weight of the base material of the separator is 10 gsm. If the weight is less than 60 gsm, the separator is frequently cut during winding and if the basis weight exceeds 60 gsm, the ESR in the high frequency region increases [0023].
As Afshari teaches basis weights of 21-24 gsm and when combined with a known spunbond substrate of 10-60 gsm, the percentage of the fibril layer is 21/60 and in the range of 35% which overlaps the range of 10-60%; 10-40% and less than 50% as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a substrate with the desired basis weight motivated to provide the desired tensile strength to the fibril sheet in combination with the improved properties of the PPD-T/PVP type fibrils for a electrochemical separator.
Claims 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshari et al (US 20200056332) in view of Otsubo et al (JP 2007168284).
Afshari is directed to high tensile strength paper suitable for use in electrochemical cells (Title). Afhari teaches the paper has fibrils comprising aramid fibrils. Afshari teaches the aramid fibrils have diameter of 10-2000 nanometers; length of 0.2 to 3 mm, surface area of 3 to 40 gsm and Canadian Standard Freeness of 1 to 10 mm (ABST).
Afshari teaches the aramid fibrils are formed into a nonwoven paper layer via mechanical methods for making papers, wet dispersion of floc in water for a papermaking machine where water can be added or removed from the mixture prior to furnish for the papermaking machine. The fibrous material in water is converted to paper on paper making device capable of making very thin papers. The wet web is dried on dryer drums to form the paper and calendared or pressed in the nip of hot roll calendar under pressure and heat [0041]-[0044].
Afshari teaches the fibrils are a blend of the fibrils comprising a polymer blend of 80 to 96 weight percent polyparaphenylene terephthalamide and 4 to 20 weight percent of polyvinylpyrrolidone [0005], [0010].
Afshari does not teach an additional layer that can be a paper, spunbonded fibrous sheet or a fibrous or nonfibrous membrane.
Otsubo is directed to a paper-fiber structured laminate which is strong is opacifying properties even if the paper layer is low in mass and excellent in physical properties is obtained by spraying a slurry of high fibrillated organic fiber pulp in water onto base materials to provide a thin coat and then dry the surface and pressure bond the laminate (ABST). Otsubo teaches the base material can be a nonwoven but could be a variety of base substrates and the paper conceals the base layer.
The highly fibrillated organic fiber pulp can be aromatic polyamides, such as poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide. The base layer of nonwoven can also be aromatic polyamides such as meta or para type polyamide.
The method is to disperse the fibrils in water and spray coat the base substrate and then pressure-bond and dried by hot press.
As to claims 24 and 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to spray coating an aqueous dispersion of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide fibrils onto a base nonwoven motivated to conceal the base substrate and provide a good bond.
As to claim 27, Afshari teaches spraying, however does not teach a base substrate.
Otsubo teaches spraying onto a base layer.
As to claim 28, Afshari teaches removing water by pressure bonding and heat.
Otsubo teaches removing water by pressure bonding and heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to spray coating an aqueous dispersion of polyparaphenylene terephthalamide fibrils onto a base nonwoven and heating to remove water motivated to conceal the base substrate and provide a good bond.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to includes claims 2 and 3 and claim 24 to include claims 25 and 26. Applicant argues that the structure as claimed of a substrate with a applied fibril covering. Applicant states that “applied fibril covering” is a defined term meaning it is a stratum of randomly positioned fibrils that has been deposited on the surface of the substrate, the stratum being substantially coextensive with the surface of the substrate. Therefore it isn’t a standalone sheet of material but a coating of fibril material. Applicant states that the structure is not discussed in either Afshari or Turpin. Applicant states that Afhsari discloses single layer papers. Turpin discloses a structure wherein a nonwoven paper layer is directly fused on one or both sides with a nonwoven fabric. Both the nonwoven paper and the nonwoven fabric layer are defined in Turpin to be sheet material comprises of short fibers and long fibers respectively. Applicant states that neither Afshari nor Turpin discloses an applied fibril covering.
Afshari is directed to a paper separator made from fibrils of the claimed polymeric materials. As Afshari teaches fibrils, Afshari teaches the applied fibril covering. Afshari teaches the paper can be made form the fibrils in a slurry of fibrils in water and then wet laid into a sheet in a mold. Wet laying is a process of depositing. The process of making the sheet is considered a product-by-process limitation and the process of making an article does not determine the patentability. Turpin teaches a nonwoven paper layer fused on both sides of a nonwoven layer. Turpin teaches a multilayer sheet as claimed. Turpin teaches the nonwoven can be a spunbond web and equated with the spunbonded fibrous sheet claimed. The combination of Afshari and Turpin teach the materials and structure as claimed.
Applicant argues that Table 1 of the specification provides data that inventive examples 1-1, 1-2 and 2-1 and comparative examples A and B. The Inventive examples have the fibril covering and the comparative examples do not. The benefit is the thermal shrinkage once the fibril coating is in place.
Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require the specific limitations of the examples nor the improved property. If Applicant has evidence that the combination produces an unexpected result, Applicant must claim the unexpected result and compare the inventive examples to the combination of Afshari and Turpin.
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 17-23 over Afshari in view of Turpin and further view of Nitta. Applicant argues that Nitta does not cure the deficiencies of Afshari and Turpin.
As the rejection over Afshari in Turpin is maintained, the rejection including Nitta is similarly maintained.
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 24-28 over Afshari in view of Otsubo. Applicant states that Otsubo is applied as teaching of dispersing fibrils in water and spray coating a base substrate and then pressure bonding in a hot press. Applicant states that the instant invention does not require heat and pressure like the material of Otsubo. Laminating pressure is not required, because, the specification lines 3-26 of page 6, the presently claimed fibrils are made form a polymer blend that has thermal stability and also very minor amount of a PVP having a lower melting temperature.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not exclude heating and pressing.
The rejections are revised per the amendments and maintained.
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights