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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 9/5/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and consideration would likely overlap, and therefore cannot be considered as independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are independent and distinct, not search and consideration. Notwithstanding, a likely overlap does not mean they are the same, but the search and consideration are divergent in a crowded field of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over, Hayashi et al (US 2019/0151805).
Hayashi teaches having a first e-PTFE layer and second e-PTFE layer, with a dispersion of amorphous polymer A impregnated therein. The lamination of the first and second layers produces an asymmetric structure [0029.] The amorphous polymer seeps into the second layer by “capillarity,” resulting in the claimed structure A-C-B. See [0030]
PNG
media_image1.png
342
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: see [0097] which plurality of first and/or second supporting layers would make B-C-A-C-B structure.
Claims 3 and 4: since layer C is layer B filled in with layer A, it will have smaller pore size, and the pore size would increase from the filling side to the opposite side, in the filling direction, which is an inherent nature of the membrane.
Claims 5 and 6: polymer A has ether groups and PTFE – see example 1.
Claims 7 and 8: expanded PTFE – example 1.
Claims 9 and 10: see overlapping ranges in abstract, [0039], [0048] and claim 3, actual pore sizes in examples.
Claims 11 and 12: the membrane pore size, while Hayashi is silent, would have been inherently in the same range, since the same process is used to fill the pores of the support layers with polymer A. See MPEP 2112 for inherency.
Claim 13 and 14: thickness in overlapping range – [0024]. Thickness can also be reduced – see [0030], or optimized based on the desired requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Traversal is on the ground that the layers are laminated in Hayashi, and that the comparative example in Table 1 show defects, whereas the example 1 shows no defect. It is unclear how these overcome the prima facie case of anticipation. Hayashi teaches the membrane structurally as claimed. “Lamination” and “no defects” are not precluded in the claims.
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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights