Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/705,373

MOLD RELEASE FILM AND LAMINATE THEREOF, AND PRODUCTION METHOD FOR MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 26, 2024
Examiner
MILLER, BETHANY MACKENZIE
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daicel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
78 granted / 140 resolved
-9.3% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
188
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.8%
+22.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 140 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Group III, Claims 11-14 in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group III depends on Group I, and Group IV depends on Group III. This is not found persuasive because the claims as originally filed do not include a shared special technical feature, as shown in the Requirement for Restriction filed 01/29/2026. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-10 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/12/2026. 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 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (US 2017/0141423 A1). Regarding Claim 11, Okada discloses a laminated film comprising a polymer film laminated as a release layer on at least one side of a substrate layer (para 0055). The polymer film comprises a polymer composition containing a chlorine-containing polymer (B) (para 0023), such as a chlorinated polypropylene (para 0042), and which may also contain another polymer such as a polypropylene (para 0050). Okada further discloses an ion exchange layer containing an ion exchange polymer adhered on the release layer of the laminated film (para 0066). Regarding Claim 12, Okada discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Okada further discloses the ion exchange layer is an electrolyte membrane or electrode membrane (para 0066), and the ion exchange polymer is preferably a fluoropolymer containing a side chain having a sulfonic acid group (para 0069). Regarding Claim 14, Okada discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Okada further discloses the peel strength between the release layer of the release film and the ion exchange layer is about 0.1 to 100 mN/mm (para 0096). Therefore the release force is about 0.004 to 4 mN/25 mm (0.1/25 to 100/25). 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. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada as applied to claim 11 above. Regarding Claim 13, Okada discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Okada further discloses the ion exchange polymer may have an ion exchange capacity of not less than 0.1 meq/g, preferably about 0.5 to 1.5 meq/g (para 0070). Therefore the ion exchange polymer may have an equivalent weight of 10,000 g/eq or less (1000/0.1), preferably about 667 to 2000 g/eq (1000/1.5 to 1000/0.5). In light of the overlap between the claimed equivalent weight and that disclosed by Okada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ion exchange polymer having equivalent weight that is both disclosed by Okada and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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. /BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787 /CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604540
BACK PANEL OF SOLAR CELL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584011
EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION, GAS BARRIER LAMINATE, AND PACKAGING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581593
PREPREG, AND METAL-CLAD LAMINATED BOARD AND WIRING SUBSTRATE OBTAINED USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565582
RESIN COMPOSITION AND METAL CLAD SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12522688
PULTRUSION WITH EXTRUDED GASKET FOAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 140 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month