CTNF 18/289,182 CTNF 94928 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase used “The present disclosure relates to” and “The present disclosure also relates to” are considered phrases which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noumi et al. (US 2010/0227223) . Regarding Claim 1, Noumi et al. teaches a porous film comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0019]) containing a crosslinked structure (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support comprising a crosslinked structure having polymer chains interconnected directly with one another) wherein the porous film has a shutdown temperature of 130 degrees or lower (Para. [0049]) (i.e. has a shutdown temperature of 145 degrees or less). Noumi et al. does not explicitly teach does not rupture after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute and has a ratio of the puncture strength after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute based on the puncture strength at 25 degrees Celsius of 50-100%. However, as the same material for the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support structure as claimed is taught by Noumi et al., the properties of the porous film would be either (a) expected to be configured to rupture after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute and have a ratio of the puncture strength after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute based on the puncture strength at 25 degrees Celsius of 50-100% or (b) if it shown that properties are not expected, the differences would be slight differences that would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The properties of the porous film (i.e. crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support) are expected to be the same as when the claimed structure and prior art have the same structure or composition, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed properties) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 2, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above. Noumi et al. does not explicitly teach a puncture strength of 50 gf or more after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute. However, as the same material for the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support structure as claimed is taught by Noumi et al., the properties of the porous film would be either (a) expected to have a puncture strength of 50 gf or more after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute or (b) if it shown that properties are not expected, the differences would be slight differences that would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The properties of the porous film (i.e. crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support) are expected to be the same as when the claimed structure and prior art have the same structure or composition, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed properties) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 3, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above. Noumi et al. does not explicitly teach a tensile strength of 500 kgf/cm 2 or more in each of a machine direction and a transverse direction, after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute. However, as the same material for the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support structure as claimed is taught by Noumi et al., the properties of the porous film would be either (a) expected to have a tensile strength of 500 kgf/cm 2 or more in each of a machine direction and a transverse direction, after being exposed at 180 degrees Celsius for 1 minute or (b) if it shown that properties are not expected, the differences would be slight differences that would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The properties of the porous film (i.e. crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support) are expected to be the same as when the claimed structure and prior art have the same structure or composition, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed properties) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 4, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above. Noumi et al. teaches a degree of crosslinking is preferably 20 to 80% as gel fraction and a gel fraction of 41% (see Table 1, Example 1 and Para. [0045]) (i.e. a crosslinking degree of 41%). Regarding Claim 5, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin support as defined in claim 1 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches use of the porous film as the separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0050]) wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte battery is a secondary battery (Para. [0053]) (i.e. a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery comprising the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin support). Regarding Claim 8, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 5 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches the separator a decrease in resistance due to meltdown was not observed with the porous film that had been formed even when the temperature exceeded 170 degrees Celsius (Para. [0079]) (i.e. which has a meltdown temperature of 160 degrees Celsius or higher) Regarding Claim 19, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the separator is the crosslinked structure-containing separator of claim 5 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte battery is a secondary battery (Para. [0053]) such as a lithium ion battery (Para. [0079]) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the separator is the crosslinked structure-containing separator) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (US 2010/0227223) in view of Honda et al. (US 2015/0263325) . Regarding Claim 6, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 5 as explained above. Noumi et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising an inorganic composite porous layer disposed on at least one surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support comprising an inorganic filler and a binder polymer. However, Honda et al. teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate (Para. [0022]) which may be a polyolefin microporous membrane (i.e. polyolefin porous support) (Para. [0084]), and a heat resistant porous layer disposed on one surface of the porous substrate (Para. [0096]) wherein the heat resistant porous layer includes a thickener such as polyvinyl alcohol (Para. [0118]) (i.e. a binder polymer) and inorganic fillers (Para. [0097]) (i.e. further comprising an inorganic composite porous layer disposed on at least a surface of a polyolefin porous support, wherein the inorganic composite porous layer comprises an inorganic filler and a binder polymer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support as taught by Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of an inorganic composite porous layer disposed thereon comprising inorganic filler and a binder polymer as taught by Honda et al., as such a layer provides excellent heat resistance such that safety of a battery can be improved and a curl is less likely to be generated on the separator (Para. [0097]). Regarding Claim 7, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 5 as explained above. Noumi et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising an inorganic composite porous layer disposed on at least one surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support comprising an inorganic filler and a binder polymer nor a porous adhesive layer disposed on the inorganic composite porous layer and the porous adhesive layer comprises a second binder polymer. However, Honda et al. teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate (Para. [0022]) which may be a polyolefin microporous membrane (i.e. polyolefin porous support) (Para. [0084]), and a heat resistant porous layer disposed on both surfaces of the porous substrate (Para. [0043]) wherein the heat resistant porous layer includes a heat resistant resin such as polyvinyl alcohol (Para. [0169]) (i.e. a binder polymer) and inorganic fillers (Para. [0097]) (i.e. further comprising an inorganic composite porous layer disposed on at least a surface of a polyolefin porous support, wherein the inorganic composite porous layer comprises an inorganic filler and a binder polymer) and an adhesive porous layer provided on both sides of a stacked body of the porous substrate and the heat resistant layer (Para. [0044]) (i.e. a porous adhesive layer disposed on the inorganic composite porous layer) and the adhesive porous layer comprises a polyvinylidene fluoride resin (Para. [0054]) (i.e. a second binder polymer) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support as taught by Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of the heat resistant porous layer (i.e. an inorganic composite porous layer) disposed thereon comprising inorganic filler and a binder polymer and the adhesive porous layer disposed on the inorganic composite porous layer as taught by Honda et al., as such a heat resistant porous layer provides excellent heat resistance such that safety of a battery can be improved and a curl is less likely to be generated on the separator (Para. [0097]) and the adhesive porous layer provides excellent adhesion to an electrode resulting in excellent cycle characteristics (Para. [0151]). Regarding Claim 9, Noumi et al. as modified by Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 7 as explained above. Honda et al. further teaches an inorganic filler is 98.5 mass% and a resin particle (i.e. first binder) is 1.0 mass% (Table 1, Example 13) (i.e. wherein a weight ratio of the inorganic filler to the first binder is 98.5:1, within the claimed range of from 95:5 to 99.9:0.1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support as taught by Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of the heat resistant porous layer (i.e. an inorganic composite porous layer) having a weight ratio of 98.5:1 of inorganic filler to resin particle (i.e. first binder) as taught by Honda et al., as such a heat resistant porous layer provides excellent heat resistance such that safety of a battery can be improved and a curl is less likely to be generated on the separator (Para. [0097]). Regarding Claim 10, Noumi et al. as modified by Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 7 as explained above. Honda et al. further teaches the heat resistant porous layer includes a heat resistant resin such as polyvinyl alcohol (Para. [0169]) (i.e. wherein the first binder comprises polyvinyl alcohol). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least surface of the crosslinked structure-containing polyolefin porous support as taught by Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of the heat resistant porous layer (i.e. an inorganic composite porous layer) having a heat resistant resin of polyvinyl alcohol (i.e. first binder polymer comprises polyvinyl alcohol) as taught by Honda et al., as such a heat resistant porous layer provides excellent heat resistance such that safety of a battery can be improved and a curl is less likely to be generated on the separator (Para. [0097]). Regarding Claim 11, Noumi et al. as modified by Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 7 as explained above. Honda et al. further teaches the adhesive porous layer includes a polyvinylidene fluoride resin (Para. [0054]) (i.e. the second binder comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator as taught by Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of adhesive porous layer including polyvinylidene fluoride as taught by Honda et al., as the adhesive porous layer provides excellent adhesion to an electrode resulting in excellent cycle characteristics (Para. [0151]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (US 2010/0227223) . Regarding Claim 12, Noumi et al. teaches a method of producing a porous film comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0019]) containing a crosslinked structure (Para. [0022]) and use of the porous film as the separator for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0050]) wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte battery is a secondary battery (Para. [0053]) (i.e. a method for manufacturing a crosslinked structure-containing separator for a lithium secondary battery) comprising producing a porous film comprising polyethylene and benzophenone (i.e. preparing a polyolefin porous support comprising a photoinitiator) and irradiating the film with ultraviolet ray (i.e. irradiating ultraviolet rays to the polyolefin porous support comprising a photoinitiator) (Para. [0071]) wherein the concentration of the photoinitiator is 0.01 wt% to 1 wt% (i.e. a content of the photoinitiator overlapping with the claimed range of 0.015-0.36 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyolefin porous support (Para. [0043]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 13, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 12 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches producing a resin sheet comprising the polyethylene (i.e. polyolefin porous support) and thereafter stretching the film to form a stretched film, where one surface of the stretched film is irradiated while being immersed in a heptane solution containing benzophenone (i.e. photoinitiator) and dried immediately thereafter (Para. [0071]) (i.e. wherein the preparing the polyolefin support comprises coating and drying a photo-crosslinking composition containing the photoinitiator and a solvent on an outer side of the polyolefin porous support). Regarding Claim 16, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 12 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches the photoinitiator is benzophenone (Para. [0042], [0071]) (i.e. wherein the photoinitiator comprises a Type 2 photoinitiator). Regarding Claim 17, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 12 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches the photoinitiator is benzophenone (Para. [0042], [0071]) (i.e. wherein the photoinitiator comprises benzophenone). Regarding Claim 18, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 12 as explained above. Noumi et al. further teaches the stretched film was irradiated with a UV lamp under the conditions in which the irradiation intensity was 14 mW/cm 2 and the irradiation time was 1 minute (i.e. 60 seconds) (Para. [0071]) (i.e. at an irradiation light dose of 840 mJ/cm 2 - which is within the claimed irradiation light dose ; as 1 mW = 1 mJ/s and 14 mW/cm 2 * [(1 mJ/s)/(1 mW)] * 60 s = 840 mJ/cm 2 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (US 2010/0227223) in view of Lee et al. (KR 2016/0043768A), provided by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement received December 18, 2023. The English machine translation of Lee et al. is attached and is referenced below . Regarding Claim 14, Noumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the invention as of claim 13 as explained above. Noumi et al. does not teach wherein the photo-crosslinking composition is a slurry for forming an inorganic composite porous layer comprising an inorganic filler, a binder polymer, the photoinitiator and the solvent. However, Lee et al. teaches a method of manufacturing an organic-inorganic composite separator membrane (Para. [0032]) wherein an inorganic particle combination material is located on the surface of the separation film in which a plurality of inorganic particles (i.e. inorganic filler) are combined by a cross-linked polymer binder (i.e. a binder polymer) (Para. [0038]) dissolved in solvent together with an initiator (Para. [0060]) and photopolymerized by irradiating ultraviolet rays (Para. [0075]) (i.e. a photocrosslinking composition is a slurry for forming an inorganic composite porous layer comprising an inorganic filler, a binder polymer, a photoinitiator and a solvent). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photo-crosslinking composition of Noumi et al. to incorporate the teaching of the composition as taught by Lee et al., as such a composition would provide a separator coating layer that has safety at high temperature and may suppress internal short circuits (Para. [0092]) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim s 12-13 and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13, 19-21 and 24-25 of copending Application No. 18/289,203 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending: Claim 13 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 12. Claim 19 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 16. Claim 20 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 17. Claim 21 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 13. Claim 24 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 15. Claim 25 of Application No. 18/289,203 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 18 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 12 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/289,379 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending: Claim 10 of Application No. 18/289,379 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 12 and 15 as the copending claim 10 teaches a range of a content of the photoinitiator is 0.015-0.3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyolefin porous support, within the claimed range of the instant claim 12 of a content of the photoinitiator is 0.015-0.36 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyolefin porous support . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/289,632 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending: Claim 14 of Application No. 18/289,632 teaches all of the elements of the invention of instant claim 12 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m.. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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. /ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 2 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 3 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 5 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 6 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 7 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 8 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 9 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 10 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 11 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 12 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 13 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 14 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 15 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 16 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 17 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 18 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 19 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/289,182 Page 20 Art Unit: 1729
Prosecution Insights