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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 introduces “one or a plurality of porous support membranes”, but every subsequent instance in Claims 6-7 is “the one or plurality of support membranes” or in Claim 8, “the support membranes”.
Examiner suggests consistency in language across claims.
Claim(s) 7-8 depend(s) on claim 6 and are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For Claim 7, there is a discrepancy in the mean flow pore size of the laminate, introduced by the limitation “each of the one or plurality of support membranes has a mean flow pore size of 200 nm or less”. (See 112 b section).
For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of record, Examiner interprets mean flow pore size of the sporous support membrane to be considered separately from the mean flow pore size of the laminate.
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.
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 7 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 7 recites “The porous membrane laminate according to claim 6, wherein each of the one or plurality of support membranes has a mean flow pore size of 200 nm or less”
However:
Claim 6 establishes that the support membranes are an element of the laminate (“The porous membrane laminate according to claim 4, comprising one or a plurality of porous support membranes”)
Claim 4 establishes a mean pore diameter of the laminate (a mean flow pore size K of the porous membrane laminate is 75 nm or less).
Claim 4 also establishes “a pore size difference J - K between a maximum pore size J and the mean flow pore size K of the porous membrane is 20 nm or less”
Even if the mean pore size of the support membrane of 200 nm were considered the max pore size J of the laminate as a whole, the mean pore size of the laminate would still need to be within 20 nm of 200 nm, which would exceed the 75 nm or less constraint of Claim 4.
Thus the 200 nm or less mean flow pore size range of the support membrane contradicts and exceeds the limitation of the laminate mean flow pore size K, established in claim 4, and is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20150079392-A1, hereinafter Sumitomo
Regarding Claim 1, Sumitomo teaches a porous membrane comprising polytetrafluoroethylene as a main component (“a microporous membrane composed of a fluororesin such as polytetrafluoroethylene (hereinafter referred to as "PTFE")”, [0001]), wherein a mean flow pore size E of the porous membrane is 75 nm or less, and a pore size difference G - E between a maximum pore size G and the mean flow pore size E of the porous membrane is 20 nm or less (“a mean flow pore size is 50 nm or less, and a difference between the mean flow pore size and a maximum pore size is less than 15 nm”, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 2, Sumitomo teaches the pore size difference between the maximum pore size G and the mean flow pore size E is 15 nm or less [0030].
Regarding Claim 3, Sumitomo teaches a percentage {(G - E)/E} x 100 of the pore size difference between the maximum pore size G and the mean flow pore size E relative to the mean flow pore size E is 35% or less (15/50 x 100 = 30%).
Regarding Claim 4, Sumitomo teaches a porous membrane laminate comprising one porous membranes, the one porous membranes being the porous membrane according to claim 1 (“A fluororesin porous resin-membrane composite further having a good mechanical strength can be produced by bonding the fluororesin microporous membrane of the present invention to a porous support”, [0069]), wherein a mean flow pore size K of the porous membrane laminate is 75 nm or less [0030], and a pore size difference J - K between a maximum pore size J and the mean flow pore size K of the porous membrane laminate is 20 nm or less [0030].
Regarding Claim 5, Sumitomo teaches a percentage {(J - K)/K} x 100 of the pore size difference between the maximum pore size J and the mean flow pore size K relative to the mean flow pore size K is 35% or less (15/50 x 100 = 30%).
Regarding Claim 6, Sumitomo teaches one porous support membranes containing polytetrafluoroethylene as a main component (“a porous body composed of PTFE which has a high mechanical strength, good chemical resistance, and good heat resistance is preferably used as the porous support”, [0071]), wherein the one support membranes are stacked on one surface or both surfaces of each of the one porous membranes [0069].
Regarding Claim 9, Sumitomo teaches the mean flow pore size K is 60 nm or less [0030].
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo as applied to the claims above in view of US 2017/0157568-A1, hereinafter Tsujiwaki.
Regarding Claim 7, Sumitomo teaches each of the one support membranes has a mean flow pore size of 100 nm or more (“it is desirable that the pore size of the porous body be larger than the pore size of the fluororesin microporous membrane …a PTFE porous body produced by stretching a PTFE membrane to form pores having a size of 100 nm or more”, [0071]), which overlaps with a range of 200 nm or less.
MPEP 2144.05(I) states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”
Additionally, Tsujiwaki provides motivation for the size difference and size ratio between support membrane pore diameter and membrane pore diameter:
[0028]: “The upper limit of the mean pore diameter of the support layer 2 is … preferably 80 times, the mean pore diameter of the retention layer …the lower limit of the mean pore diameter of the support layer 2 is preferably 2 times… the mean pore diameter of the retention layer. When the mean pore diameter of the support layer 2 is more than the upper limit, there is a
concern that the strength of the support layer 2 may become insufficient…. less than the lower limit, there is a concern that the pressure drop of the porous filter may increase.”
[0034]: “The upper limit of the mean pore diameter of the retention layer 3 is… preferably 0.2 µm…lower limit of the mean pore diameter of the retention layer 3 is preferably 0.01 µm”
The Sumitomo membrane “ mean flow pore size is 50 nm or less” [0030], which falls within the recommended range of Tsujiwaki [0034] (10 -200 nm). Applying the Tsujiwaki [0028] limit of a support membrane with 2 times the pore diameter would include a support membrane mean pore diameter of 200 nm or less.
Sumitomo is analogous because Sumitomo is in the same field of porous PTFE membranes with narrow pore size distribution and porous PTFE support membranes that provide mechanical strength without further impeding filtering capabilities (Sumitomo [0071]).
Tsujiwaki is analogous because Tsujiwaki solves the same problem of giving mechanical support to pluralities of stacked porous PTFE membranes and porous PTFE support membranes while optimizing strength and pressure drop parameters [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to apply the recommended pore diameter ratios of Tsujiwaki to the membrane and support membrane of Sumitomo. In so doing, the sufficient strength of the support layer is maintained without “a concern that the pressure drop of the porous filter may increase” (Tsujiwaki [0028].
Regarding Claim 8, Sumitomo is silent on pluralities of alternating stacked porous membranes and support membranes.
However, Tsujiwaki teaches “A porous filter includes a porous laminate in which a
plurality of biaxially stretched porous sheets made of PTFE are stacked.” (Abstract) and Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of the porous membranes (3) and a plurality of the porous support membranes (2), wherein the porous membranes (3) and the porous support membranes (2) are alternately stacked, and the porous support membranes (2) are stacked on both ends of the porous membrane laminate.
Tsujiwaki Figure 2. Alternating stacked laminate of PTFE membrane (3) and support membrane (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsujiwaki also provides motivation for this arrangement:
“Since the support layers 2 serve as protective members for the retention layer 3, the porous
filter can enhance the mechanical strength and life of the porous laminate 1 while improving retention performance” [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to arrange the laminate of Sumitomo in the alternating stack arrangement of Tsujiwaki Fig. 2, having support membranes on both ends, to “enhance the mechanical strength and life of the porous laminate while improving retention performance” (Tsujiwaki [0070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0042299 A1 teaches narrow pore size distribution in porous PTFE membranes and composites.
JP 5873389 B2 teaches a porous PTFE membrane with support, wherein the membrane mean pore diameter < 50 nm with a max – mean value of ≤ 15 nm and also 35% or less of the mean pore diameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Ben 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights