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 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 35-36, 41-42, 44-52 and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuoka et al. (US 2015/0030907) in view of Yamada (US 2012/0282514).
Regarding claim 35, Mitsuoka teaches a polyethylene microporous membrane which is suitable for battery separators and garments (“a wide microporous film comprising; one or more layers comprising a polyolefin”) (Paragraph [0212]). The films may have a width of at least 500 mm which overlaps with the instantly claimed range (Paragraph [0125]). MPEP 2144.05: 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). The membranes may be a monolayer or a multilayer laminate (Paragraph [0069]).
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to a thickness standard deviation being no more than 2.0 microns.
Yamada teaches microporous membranes which achieve a high thickness uniformity by having a thickness standard deviation in the transverse and machine directions of less than 1 micron (Paragraphs [0002]; [0091]-[0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the membranes of Mitsuoka to have a high thickness uniformity by having a thickness standard deviation in the transverse and machine directions of less than 1 micron as taught by Yamada.
Regarding claim 36, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. As discussed above, the width of the membranes may be greater than 500 mm, overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 41, Mitsuoka teaches the polyethylene membranes as discussed above.
Regarding claim 42, Mitsuoka teaches the polyethylene membranes as discussed above.
Regarding claim 44, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. As discussed above, the membranes may be monolayers or laminates, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as having 2 or more layers (3, 4, 5 layers, etc.).
Regarding claim 45, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. As discussed above, the membranes may be monolayers or laminates, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as having 2 or more layers (3, 4, 5 layers, etc.).
Regarding claim 46, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 45. As discussed above, the membranes may be monolayers or laminates, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as having 2 or more layers (3, 4, 5 layers, etc.).
Regarding claim 47, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. The membranes have a thickness of 2 to 100 microns, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 48, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 44. As discussed above, in claim 35, the membranes have a thickness standard deviation of less than 1.
Regarding claim 49, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. The membranes have a Gurley air permeability of 1 to 1000 sec/100 mL (1 to 1000 sec/100 cc) (Paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 50, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. The membranes have a porosity of 15% to 85%, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 51, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. The membranes have a pin puncture strength of 100 to 1000 gf (Paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 52, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35. As discussed above, the membranes may be used for garments.
Regarding claim 71, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to the membranes being formed from a dry process.
However, this limitation appears to be a product-by-process limitation which only describes the formation of the films of claim 35. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the limitation of forming the films via a dry process does not appear to impart any further structural limitations to the films of claim 35. Therefore, the final product of claim 71 is, ultimately, the films of claim 35, which are taught by Mitsuoka and Yamada as discussed above.
Regarding claim 72, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 48. As discussed above, in claim 35, the membranes have a thickness standard deviation of less than 1.
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuoka et al. (US 2015/0030907) in view of Yamada (US 2012/0282514) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Humiston et al. (US 2014/0093687).
Regarding claim 37, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to the microporous membrane having one or more non-porous regions which are located along a central region of the microporous membranes.
Humiston teaches a microporous membrane for garments and battery separators (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). The membranes are provided with two or more layers which are laminated together and is further modified by a process known as microcreping in order to introduce permanent small, regularly spaced, crepes, profiles, compactions, pleats, or wrinkles into the laminated composite microporous membrane for the purpose of changing, modifying or improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency. In addition, the inventive novel, improved, modified, treated, or microcreped microporous laminated membrane may have significantly improved `hand` or softness which is a desired characteristic or performance property in textile garments, materials or applications (Paragraph [0007]). The process results in the laminates with the rows of microcreped areas as shown in figure 1 which illustrates non-porous areas (Paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the laminates of Mitsuoka such that they are provided with a microcreping process in order to improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency as taught by Humiston which illustrates the result of the microcreping process to be rows of non-porous areas.
As discussed above, the membranes are provided with microcreped rows which are illustrated in figure 1 of Humiston which shows the rows being provided throughout the laminate, including a central region.
Regarding claim 38, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 37. As discussed above, the membranes are provided with microcreped rows which are illustrated in figure 1 of Humiston which shows the rows being provided throughout the laminate, including a central region.
Regarding claim 39, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to the microporous membrane having one or more non-porous regions which are located along a central region of the microporous membranes.
Humiston teaches a microporous membrane for garments and battery separators (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). The membranes are provided with two or more layers which are laminated together and is further modified by a process known as microcreping in order to introduce permanent small, regularly spaced, crepes, profiles, compactions, pleats, or wrinkles into the laminated composite microporous membrane for the purpose of changing, modifying or improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency. In addition, the inventive novel, improved, modified, treated, or microcreped microporous laminated membrane may have significantly improved `hand` or softness which is a desired characteristic or performance property in textile garments, materials or applications (Paragraph [0007]). The process results in the laminates with the rows of microcreped areas as shown in figure 1 which illustrates non-porous areas (Paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the laminates of Mitsuoka such that they are provided with a microcreping process in order to improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency as taught by Humiston which illustrates the result of the microcreping process to be rows of non-porous areas.
The microcreping process introduces the rows of three-dimensional architecture into the structure of the membrane (“exhibits a re-solidified polymeric structure”) (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 40, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to the microporous membrane having one or more non-porous regions which are located along a central region of the microporous membranes.
Humiston teaches a microporous membrane for garments and battery separators (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). The membranes are provided with two or more layers which are laminated together and is further modified by a process known as microcreping in order to introduce permanent small, regularly spaced, crepes, profiles, compactions, pleats, or wrinkles into the laminated composite microporous membrane for the purpose of changing, modifying or improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency. In addition, the inventive novel, improved, modified, treated, or microcreped microporous laminated membrane may have significantly improved `hand` or softness which is a desired characteristic or performance property in textile garments, materials or applications (Paragraph [0007]). The process results in the laminates with the rows of microcreped areas as shown in figure 1 which illustrates non-porous areas (Paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the laminates of Mitsuoka such that they are provided with a microcreping process in order to improving certain characteristics or performance such as mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency as taught by Humiston which illustrates the result of the microcreping process to be rows of non-porous areas.
As discussed above, the microcreped rows are provided with pleats (“located along a crease”) in order to improve the mechanical strength, elasticity and resiliency.
Claims 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuoka et al. (US 2015/0030907) in view of Yamada (US 2012/0282514).
Regarding claim 69, Mitsuoka teaches a polyethylene microporous membrane which is suitable for battery separators and garments (“a wide microporous film comprising; one or more layers comprising a polyolefin”) (Paragraph [0212]). The films may have a width of at least 500 mm which overlaps with the instantly claimed range (Paragraph [0125]). MPEP 2144.05: 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). The membranes may be a monolayer or a multilayer laminate (“the microporous film is a multilayer film”) (Paragraph [0069]). The membranes have a thickness of 2 to 100 microns, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0124]). The membranes have a Gurley air permeability of 1 to 1000 sec/100 mL (1 to 1000 sec/100 cc) (Paragraph [0116]). The membranes have a porosity of 15% to 85%, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0122]). The membranes have a pin puncture strength of 100 to 1000 gf (Paragraph [0126]).
Mitsuoka is silent with respect to a thickness standard deviation being no more than 2.0 microns.
Yamada teaches microporous membranes which achieve a high thickness uniformity by having a thickness standard deviation in the transverse and machine directions of less than 1 micron (Paragraphs [0002]; [0091]-[0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the membranes of Mitsuoka to have a high thickness uniformity by having a thickness standard deviation in the transverse and machine directions of less than 1 micron as taught by Yamada.
Regarding claim 70, Mitsuoka teaches the membranes as discussed above with respect to claim 69. As discussed above, the membranes may be laminates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 47 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/16/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim 47, 48, 69 and 70 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/16/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting Rejection of claims 35 and 69 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The abandonment of application 17/925,032 renders the rejection of 12/16/2025 moot. The rejection of 12/16/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-10, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 35 requiring the microporous films having a thickness standard deviation of no more than 2 microns overcomes the teachings of Mitsuoka and Yamada. Specifically, applicant argues that the resulting membranes formed from the combination of references would not be easily made. Instead, the present invention achieved what could not be done which is form a film which is both wide, having a width of at least 127 cm, and has a desired uniformity, a thickness standard deviation of less than 2 microns. Even further, the examples of Mitsuoka and Yamada fail to teach the either the extensive widths nor the combination of width and thickness standard deviation required by the claims.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that the determination of obviousness is whether the prior teaches the features of the instant claim either in a single reference or a combination of references. In the instant case, Mitsuoka teaches an overlapping range for the width of a microporous membrane. Specifically, Mitsuoka teaches widths of at least 500 mm (50 cm) overlapping with the claimed range of at least 127 cm (See rejection above). The rejection then turns to Yamada to teach the thickness standard deviation being less than 1 micron in order to provide high thickness uniformity (See rejection above). As such, the combination of Mitsuoka and Yamada teaches the amendments and each of the limitations to claim 35. The examiner contends that even if the instant invention achieved in practice to form a microporous membrane with the required widths and thickness standard deviation, these claimed features were already taught by prior art references and the combination renders claim 35 as obvious.
Concerning applicant’s arguments regarding the examples of Mitsuoka and Yamada, the examiner notes that examples are preferred embodiments of the inventions described in the prior are and do not take away from the general teachings provided by the references. MPEP 2123: Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the examiner contends that the general teachings of Mitsuoka and Yamada are relevant and render claim 35 as obvious as discussed above.
The current action is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783