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Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II claims 5-10 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the non-elected claims should be reinstated should a generic claim be found allowable. This is not found persuasive because, at least, the patentability of one group does not read on the reasons for restriction. Furthermore the restriction does not involve a generic claim and a more specific claim, but was set forth between a manufacturing method and a product made. The manufacturing method (elected) is not generic to the product made.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the claim set of 1/30/23 Claim 5 step (1) line 7 describes “dipping the polyethylene film roll” yet this is followed by “performing winding” in line 8. How is something that is already rolled wound? Does this involve unwinding? This is not clear.
Claim 5 step (2) line 3 describes “another dipping and absorbing film roll” yet it is unclear from the claim if this “another” roll is subject to the same requirements/method as the antecedent dipping and absorbing film roll. It is suggested that prior to step 2 applicant add another step demonstrating that a second dipping and absorbing film roll is prepared, with specificity as to if the process is the same as the antecedent dipping and absorbing film roll.
Claim 5 step (5), in line 2 describes “striping off the film online”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. First, “striping” should be “stripping”; this is a claim objection below. Second, is the entire film stripped off or is one of the layers stripped off? If the entire film is stripped off, what is it stripped off from, what is the meaning of “stripping off…online”? Third, since there is question as to what “the film” means in step (5), what does “winding the film” mean? Does it mean the entire single-sided sulfonated composite positive film roll? Does it mean something less, with fewer layers? Fourth, step (5) describes “at the same time inserting a plastic separation mesh roll” but is not clear as to where this plastic separation mesh is inserted. Fifth, “performing winding” at the end of step (5) does not designate what is being wound- is it the entire newly stuck-together single sided sulfonated positive film rolls? Do they also contain a plastic separation mesh roll? The claim is not clear in step (5) in these several respects, each of which must be addressed.
Claim 5 step (9) line 4 recites “and respectively winding after unwinding to obtain” which should be “and unwinding the film roll followed by winding to obtain”. But in a complicating factor, the phrase “winding to obtain” is followed by “two single piece-type bipolar film rolls”. According to this following phrase it would appear that “winding…to obtain” means that there is also a separation happening and that there are actually two winding means in “winding…to obtain”. The phrase “winding…to obtain” is not clear enough in this respect. Also, what happens to the plastic separation mesh which was inserted in step (5)? Is it separated from the positive film roll during this winding? Or does it become part of only one of the single piece type bipolar film rolls, or split into both? It is not clear how the two single piece-type bipolar film rolls are obtained and what their makeup is.
Claims 6-10 depend on claim 5 and do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in step (1) in the third line, “spraying and applying…powder, covering…” should be “spraying and applying…powder to the mesh cloth, covering…”. Also in the third line “covering a protective film” should be “covering the polyethylene and cloth with a protective film”. In step (1)’s fifth line, “stripping the protective film after…” should be “stripping the protective film from the polyethylene and cloth after…”. In step (1)’s eighth line “performing winding to obtain…” should be “performing winding on the dipped and absorbed film to obtain…”
In claim 5 step (3) line 2, “…in a nitrogen atmosphere for polymerization, and stripping…” should be “in a nitrogen atmosphere for polymerization, polymerizing, and stripping…”
In step (4) line 2 “dipping the film” should be “dipping the unwound film”.
In step (5) line 2 “striping” should be “stripping”.
In step (6) line 4 “injecting a chloromethylation reaction solution, starting” should be “injecting a chloromethylation reaction solution into the reaction tank, starting”.
In step (7) line 2 “extracting out the chloromethylation reaction solution, injecting”” should be “extracting out the chloromethylation reaction solution from the reaction tank, injecting”.
In step (7) line 2 “injecting dichloroethane for washing” should be “injecting dichloroethane into the reaction tank for washing”.
In step (7) line 3 “injecting a tertiary amination reaction solution, starting…” should be “injecting a tertiary amination reaction solution into the reaction tank, starting…”.
In step (8) line 2 “injecting dichloroethane for washing” should be “injecting dichloroethane into the reaction tank for washing”.
In step (8) line 4 “injecting a methylation reaction solution, starting” should be “injecting a methylation reaction solution into the reaction tank, starting”
In step (9) line 3 “injecting methanol for washing” should be “injecting methanol into the reaction tank for washing”.
In step (9) line 3 “injecting saline water for washing” should be “injecting saline water into the reaction tank for washing”.
In step (9) line 4 “integrally taking out the film roll and” should be “integrally taking out the film roll from the reaction tank and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest art, which is inapplicable in obviousness or anticipatory rejection, includes that cited in the international search report such as CN 104861194 by Ge et al. Ge describes a similar set of chemicals applied to similar sides of a membrane but is not specific enough regarding the winding and unwinding and creation of two bipolar membranes at a time.
CN 108752681 by Lei et al is by some of the same instant inventors and also concerns making a film. It details steps similar to instant claim 5 steps (1)-(3), but does not describe the creation of a bipolar film.
CN 110280155 by Ding et al describes industrial preparation of a bipolar film, similar in purpose to the instant process. However Ding’s process does not involve as much winding and unwinding as the instant process.
The instant process creates two bipolar films through an extensive process involving many winding and unwinding steps which are not obviated by the related art.
Applicant is placed on notice that should claims 5-10 be placed in condition for allowance, claims 1-4 will not be rejoined as they would involve further search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights