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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending:
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been entered. Amendments do not overcome §112 and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed on 03/24/2026.
Amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under §112.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pg. 5 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
The Examiner indicates that claim 4 recites "wherein the microporous membrane has a Gurley value of from 2 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL" and is indefinite because the claimed range is broader than the range previously recited.
In response, Applicant submits that this rejection is not appropriate. The Gurley value recited in claim 1 refers to the Gurley value of the entire "laminated film", whereas the Gurley value recited in claim 4 refers to the Gurley value of the "microporous membrane" alone, which is merely one constituent element of the laminated film. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter defined in claim 4 is different from that defined in claim 1, and therefore, claim 4 does not improperly broaden the scope of the dependent claim relative to claim 1.
Thus, Applicant submits that claim 4 is definite, and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
This argument is not persuasive because the range of the dependent claim must fall within the range of the independent claim; however claim 4 falls outside of the range of the range recited in the independent claim and includes a range that fully encompasses the range recited in the independent claim thus broadens the scope of the claim which is an improper dependent claim. Therefore, the §112 rejection is maintained.
On pgs. 6-8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH 05-138786, see translation in NPL section of 892) [in view of] Ikuta (JP2020070337, US 2021/0402357 which is a national stage application has been used as the English equivalent document for Ikuta). Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto [in view of] Ikuta and further in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0099476).
In response, Applicant notes initially that claim 1 has been rejected as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as the primary reference in view of Ikuta as the secondary reference with respect to the Gurley value feature.
However, Yamamoto differs from the invention according to claim 1 in that, in Yamamoto, the resin of the nonwoven fabric is directly bonded to the microporous film, i.e., the resin of the nonwoven fabric corresponding to the porous support layer (sheath component) is the same as the resin at the adhesive portion corresponding to the bonding parts. In contrast, the present invention is characterized in that the bonding parts are separately provided using a specific thermoplastic resin. Accordingly, Yamamoto does not disclose or suggest the structure recited in claim 1.
In order to clarify the structural difference between claim 1 and the laminated sheet disclosed in Yamamoto, Applicant has amended claim 1 to add the following limitations:
"melting points of all thermoplastic resins contained in the bonding parts are lower than melting points of all polyolefins contained in the microporous membrane, and a melting point of the thermoplastic resin contained in the
bonding parts is lower than a melting point of a resin contained in the porous support layer"
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs [0081] and [0082] of the present specification.
Further, from another perspective, the present invention is structurally different from Yamamoto in that an adhesive resin (such as powder or web) is interposed separately and independently from the constituent fibers of the porous support layer. To highlight this distinction, Applicant has further amended claim 1 to add the language "...that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer."
Applicant submits that support for this aspect is found in the specification, which describes structures and manufacturing methods in which a thermoplastic resin serving as an adhesive (e.g., powder or the like) is distributed and disposed on the surface of the porous support layer. In addition, Applicant submits that this structure can be understood from the drawings.
Based on the amended claims, Applicant respectfully traverses the art rejections in view of the following comments.
- Suppression of Closure of the Porous Structure by Low-Temperature Bonding –
The invention according to claim 1 achieves bonding by melting a thermoplastic resin dedicated to bonding through application of heat. Therefore, bonding can be performed at a lower temperature compared with cases where the membrane and the support layer are directly thermally bonded by heat calendering.
As a result, the porous structures of the polyolefin microporous membrane and the porous support layer are less likely to be closed or damaged.
In contrast, in Yamamoto, relatively high heat and/or pressure may be required in order to melt the sheath component of the fibers.
Accordingly, the structure of claim 1 is advantageous in maintaining the porous structure more effectively.
- Securing Air Permeability and Suppressing Clogging by Scattered Arrangement –
By using the adhesive resin as an independent structural component (such as powder or the like), the bonding parts can be easily arranged in a scattered manner, for example, as discrete points, at the interface between the polyolefin microporous membrane and the porous support layer.
This scattered arrangement ensures the air permeability of the laminated film and also suppresses clogging by particles at the interface.
- Suppression of Thermal Deformation by Optimization of Melting Points –
By providing independent bonding parts, it becomes possible to set the melting point of the thermoplastic resin contained in the bonding parts lower than the melting points of the polyolefin contained in the microporous membrane and the resin contained in the porous support layer.
As a result, the heating temperature during production can be set lower than the melting points of the respective layers, thereby suppressing thermal deformation of the polyolefin microporous membrane and the porous support layer. This also provides a significant advantage of the claimed structure.
Thus, Applicant submits that the present invention is not obvious over the cited art, and withdrawal of these rejections is respectfully requested.
This argument is not persuasive because Yamamoto teaches the claimed amendments.
Yamamoto teaches a laminated film (laminated sheet, see ABS and claim 1), comprising:
a microporous membrane (microporous film, see pg. 4) containing a polyolefin (composed of polyethylene, see pg. 4); and
a porous support layer (nonwoven fabric layer, see pg. 4),
wherein: the microporous membrane and the porous support layer are bonded to each other by bonding parts (corresponds to melted sheath resin forming localized fusion regions, see pg. 11) that contain a thermoplastic resin (the core component is made of a thermoplastic resin having a melting point higher than that of the sheath component and the nonwoven fabric is bonded to the fine porous film by the fusion of the sheath component of the core-sheath-type composite fiber as the component fabric of the nonwoven fabric to the fine porous film, see pg. 4) and are scattered (the laminated sheet obtained as described above had an area ratio of the bonding area of 12%, see example 1; it is implied in example 1 that the bonding parts are scattered), melting points of all thermoplastic resins contained in the bonding parts are lower than melting points of all polyolefins contained in the microporous membrane (“applying heat and pressure at a temperature 5 to 30 ° C. lower than the melting point, the sheath component of the predetermined core-sheath type composite fiber that is in contact with the surface of the microporous film is softened or melted, and the core is A method for producing a laminated sheet, comprising fusing a sheath-type composite fiber to the microporous film and joining the nonwoven fabric and the microporous film”, see pg. 12; therefore the melted or softened has a lower melting point while the membrane remains unmelted during bonding), and a melting point of the thermoplastic resin contained in the bonding parts is lower than a melting point of a resin contained in the porous support layer (the core component of the core-sheath type composite fiber, any thermoplastic resin having a melting point higher than that of polyethylene, see pg. 6).
With respect to the limitation “bonding parts that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer”, Yamamoto teaches localized bonding regions at the interface between the microporous film and the nonwoven fabric layer; these regions are formed by melting the thermoplastic sheath resin of the core-sheath fibers (see pg. 12). The resulting fusion regions contain thermoplastic resin and are present only at predetermined bonding locations produced by embossing or calendaring (see pg. 12). Under BRI, these localized fusion regions constitute the claimed “bonding parts”.
Additionally, the instant specification does not define “bonding parts that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer”, nor does it describe bonding parts as separate adhesive members or structures distinct from the thermoplastic resin forming the bonded regions. Therefore, the limitation is given its broadest reasonable intereptation consistent with the instant specification.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/682,181.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 of the reference application '739 fall within the scope of claims 1-10 of the instant invention, and therefore claims 1-10 of the instant invention are anticipated by claims 1-11 of the reference application ‘739.
Regarding claim 1, the copending claims recite a laminated film (see copending claim 1), comprising:
a microporous membrane containing a polyolefin (see copending claim 1); and
a porous support layer (see copending claim 1),
wherein: the microporous membrane and the porous support layer are bonded to each other by bonding parts that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer and that contain a thermoplastic resin and are scattered (see copending claim 1), melting points of all thermoplastic resins contained in the bonding parts are lower than melting points of all polyolefins contained in the microporous membrane, and a melting point of the thermoplastic resin contained in the bonding parts is lower than a melting point of a resin contained in the porous support layer (see copending claim 1), and
the laminated film has a Gurley value of from 5 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL (see copending claim 10).
Regarding claim 2, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane contains polyethylene (see copending claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 2, wherein the polyethylene contained in the microporous membrane has a weight average molecular weight of from 800,000 to 2,800,000 (see copending claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane has a Gurley value of from 2 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL (see copending claim 10).
Regarding claim 5, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the microporous membrane has a porosity of from 80% to 90% (see copending claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the microporous membrane has an average thickness of from 10 um to 110 um (see copending claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the porous support layer is a polyester fiber structure (see copending claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the porous support layer has a basis weight of from 50 g/m2 to 150 g/m2 (see copending claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the porous support layer has a bulk density of from 0.20 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3 (see copending claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, the copending claims recite the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the laminated film is used for separating bacteria (see copending claim 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “bonding parts that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer”; The instant specification does not sufficiently support the phrase “provided independently” because there is no disclosure stating that the bonding parts are independent, distinct, discreet or separate from fibers or the support layer. Additionally, the instant specification does not sufficient support the term “constituent fibers” because the term was not found in the disclosure. Fig. 1 of the instant specification does not provide sufficient support because it is a figure that cannot be merely relied upon to support technical terminology.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the microporous membrane has a Gurley value of from 2 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL”; the claim is indefinite because the claimed range is broader than the range previously recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH 05-138786, see translation in NPL section of 892) in view of Ikuta (JP 2020070337, US 2021/0402357 which is a national stage application has been used as the English equivalent document for Ikuta)
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Yamamoto teaches a laminated film (laminated sheet, see ABS and claim 1), comprising:
a microporous membrane (microporous film, see pg. 4) containing a polyolefin (composed of polyethylene, see pg. 4); and
a porous support layer (nonwoven fabric layer, see pg. 4),
wherein: the microporous membrane and the porous support layer are bonded to each other by bonding parts (corresponds to melted sheath resin forming localized fusion regions, see pg. 11) that contain a thermoplastic resin (the core component is made of a thermoplastic resin having a melting point higher than that of the sheath component and the nonwoven fabric is bonded to the fine porous film by the fusion of the sheath component of the core-sheath-type composite fiber as the component fabric of the nonwoven fabric to the fine porous film, see pg. 4) and are scattered (the laminated sheet obtained as described above had an area ratio of the bonding area of 12%, see example 1; it is implied in example 1 that the bonding parts are scattered), melting points of all thermoplastic resins contained in the bonding parts are lower than melting points of all polyolefins contained in the microporous membrane (“applying heat and pressure at a temperature 5 to 30 ° C. lower than the melting point, the sheath component of the predetermined core-sheath type composite fiber that is in contact with the surface of the microporous film is softened or melted, and the core is A method for producing a laminated sheet, comprising fusing a sheath-type composite fiber to the microporous film and joining the nonwoven fabric and the microporous film”, see pg. 12; therefore the melted or softened has a lower melting point while the membrane remains unmelted during bonding), and a melting point of the thermoplastic resin contained in the bonding parts is lower than a melting point of a resin contained in the porous support layer (the core component of the core-sheath type composite fiber, any thermoplastic resin having a melting point higher than that of polyethylene, see pg. 6).
With respect to the limitation “bonding parts that are provided independently of constituent fibers of the porous support layer”, Yamamoto teaches localized bonding regions at the interface between the microporous film and the nonwoven fabric layer; these regions are formed by melting the thermoplastic sheath resin of the core-sheath fibers (see pg. 12). The resulting fusion regions contain thermoplastic resin and are present only at predetermined bonding locations produced by embossing or calendaring (see pg. 12). Under BRI, these localized fusion regions constitute the claimed “bonding parts”.
Yamamoto does not teach (1) wherein the laminated film has a Gurley value of from 5 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL; and (2) wherein the microporous membrane has a Gurley value of from 2 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL.
In a related field of endeavor, Ikuta teaches a polyolefin microporous membrane (see ABS) comprising a Gurley value of from 5 sec/100 mL to 100 sec/100 mL (0.1/100 – 200/100 sec/mL, see ¶21 which overlaps with the claimed ranges (1) & (2)).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1/100-200/100 sec/mL completely encompasses the claimed range of 5/100 – 100/100 sec/mL. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microporous membrane of Yamamoto by selecting a Gurley value that falls within the claimed range as disclosed by Ikuta because liquid permeability of the liquid to be treated becomes favorable and this is desirable from the viewpoint of preventing clogging (Ikuta, see ¶151).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1, wherein the microporous membrane contains polyethylene (Yamamoto, i.e. polyethylene).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 2, wherein the polyethylene contained in the microporous membrane has a weight average molecular weight of from 800,000 to 2,800,000 (Yamamoto, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene having a weight average molecular weight of 20 x 105, see example 1; the prior art range falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1.
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the microporous membrane has a porosity of from 80% to 90%”, Yamamoto discloses the porosity of the microporous film is preferably about 50% or more (see pg. 5) which overlaps with the claimed range; additionally, in example 1, the microporous film porosity is 77% with is slightly non-overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the porosity of Yamamoto by selecting a porosity that falls within the claimed range because higher porosities can be reliably obtained (Yamamoto, see pg. 6) and higher densities are more desirable in Yamamoto (see pg. 5 of Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the microporous membrane has an average thickness of from 10 um to 110 um (Yamamoto, the microporous film has a thickness of 20 um, see example 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1,wherein the porous support layer is a polyester fiber structure (Yamamoto, non-woven fabric composed of polyester, see example 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim1.
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the laminated film is used for separating bacteria” which is directed to an intended use. Yamamoto is capable of meeting the intended use, because the laminated sheet of Yamamoto can be suitably used as a filter for removing bacteria, see pg. 9.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH 05-138786, see translation in NPL section of 892) in view of Ikuta (JP 2020070337, US 2021/0402357 which is a national stage application has been used as the English equivalent document for Ikuta) and further in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0099476).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1.
Yamamoto does not teach wherein the porous support layer has a basis weight of from 50 g/m2 to 150 g/m2.
In a related field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches a waterproof moisture-permeable fabric (see ABS) comprising a basis weight of 15 to 250 g/m2 (see ¶91), which overlaps with the claimed range.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 15 to 250 g/m2 overlaps the claimed range of 50 g/m2 to 150 g/m2. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microporous membrane of Yamamoto by selecting a basis weight of 15 to 250 g/m2 as disclosed by Nakamura because the basis weight increases the tensile strength, burst resistance, abrasion resistance and hydrostatic pressure (Nakamura, see ¶91).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto and Ikuta teach the laminated film according to claim 1.
Yamamoto does not teach wherein the porous support layer has a bulk density of from 0.20 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3.
In a related field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches a waterproof moisture-permeable fabric (see ABS) comprising a bulk density values within the range, because nonwoven fabric A having a basis weight of 40 g/m2 and thickness of 0.2 mm has a calculated bulk density of 0.20 g/cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microporous membrane of Yamamoto by selecting a bulk density of 0.20 g/cm3 as disclosed by Nakamura because it has desirable burst resistance and abrasion resistance properties (Nakamura, see ¶193).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights