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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “with no grease being added” at line 2. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. The term “grease” is not understood by the examiner to be a recognized term of art and it is not clear what is actually intended to be excluded from the recitation by the word “grease”. It is not clear whether the recitation “no grease” is intended to be a recitation directed to a dry method that excludes the use of materials such as processing oils or plasticizers or diluents or solvents (these are all terms of art) or whether “grease” is intended to have a different, yet unclear, scope than the terms of art. It is not clear whether “grease” has, for example, been mistranslated into English from the foreign priority document, or whether a different material than conventional materials is in view. It appears to the examiner that materials utilized in the established art to form pores in the film by means other than only by stretching are intended to be excluded. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “relatively lower than the extrusion temperature”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. The term “the extrusion temperature” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is not clear which temperature is specifically being referenced. Further the word “relatively” raises a question of scope. It is not clear to the examiner whether “relatively lower” and “lower” have the same or different scopes. If the scopes are the same “relatively” is redundant. If the scopes are not the same, it is not clear how much lower the temperature is intended to be such that it is considered to be “relatively lower”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further, claim 1, at step b) recites “the film” in connection with the aging step. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim. At this point in the claim, the extruded material that is to be annealed and aged is still called a “nonporous precursor”. By using the word “film” at this point, it is not clear what is necessarily intended or required. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further still, claim 1 recites “room temperature”. In context, the limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. Claim 7 appears to provide further specificity and recites “cold stretching is carried out at an ambient temperature” as low as 0°C. It is not clear whether “room temperature” is understood to includes values as low as or below 0°C, which would not be a conventional understanding, or whether the stretching of claim 7 is additional stretching beyond the longitudinal stretching (e.g. room temperature and ambient temperature are referring to different temperatures), or whether claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1 because the stretching temperatures are not completely within the range of the claim 1 “room temperature” lower limit. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 1 additionally recites, “relaxation magnification in the longitudinal direction is 0%”. It is not clear whether this is merely clarifying that “without concurrently carrying out longitudinal relaxation” means the relaxation magnification is 0% (which is understood to be necessarily the case) or whether the limitation has a different and unclear intended meaning. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claims 7-10, the claims utilize tildes instead of dashes. As such, the recitations do not appropriately recite a clear range of values and this raises a question of scope. For the purposes, of examination it is understood that dashes were intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summey et al. (US 2021/0126319) in view of Nasu et al. (US 2015/0065595) and Hamer (US 4,620,956).
Regarding claim 1, Summey et al. teach a preparation method for microporous film/membrane (Abstract), wherein the method uses a dry film stretching technology, with no grease being added to a polymer material for subsequent removal to create pores therein or any pore-forming microparticles that promote the formation of micropores (paragraphs [0002], [0005]-[0011], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0039], [0112] and [0130]); comprising a nonporous precursor extrusion process, involving heating and extruding a semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to form a nonporous precursor (paragraphs [0008], [0014] – polyethylene and polypropylene are semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymers, [0037], [0112] and [0118]); an annealing process (paragraphs [0015] and [0041]; Figure 1); a longitudinal stretching with or without transverse relaxation process, involving stretching the nonporous precursor longitudinally with or without carrying out transverse relaxation at a temperature within or which overlaps the claimed range from room temperature to a temperature below the melting point of the polymer, to form a longitudinal stretched film (Figure 1; paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0047]-[0051]); a transverse stretching without longitudinal relaxation process, involving, starting at a temperature within or which overlaps the claimed range from above the glass transition point of the polymer to a temperature below the melting point temperature thereof, carrying out transverse stretching at least once on the longitudinal stretched film without concurrently carrying out longitudinal relaxation, relaxation magnification in the longitudinal direction is 0%, to form a longitudinal/transverse stretched film (Figure 1; paragraphs [0052] – “TD stretching may be performed with or without machine direction (MD) relax”, [0053], [0050] – cold stretching and hot stretching temperatures suggested; [0067] – TD stretch without MD relaxation) ; a transverse relaxation process, involving, starting at a temperature above the glass transition point of the polymer to a temperature below the melting point temperature thereof, carrying out transverse relaxation at least once on the longitudinal and/or transverse stretched film, to form the microporous film (Figure 1 – “Additional MD and/or TD stretching with or without TD or MD relaxation”); paragraphs [0011] and [0063]-[0067]; ); and a winding process, involving rolling up the microporous film into rolls and storing thereof (paragraphs [0089]-[0090]; further, winding the films/membranes produced by the method, as claimed, for storage or transport or prior to additional treatment, is understood to be a routine expedient in the art).
Summey et al. teach and suggest an annealing process at a temperature relatively lower than an extrusion temperature/melt temperature (Figure 1; paragraphs [0015] and [0041]), but do not further teach an aging process wherein the film is taken off a roll extrusion production line to be kept aside to complete aging. Further, while Summey et al. imply that the annealing process is utilized to produce a recrystallization phenomenon as claimed, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand (paragraph [0041]); Summey et al. do not make this explicit.
However, Nasu teach an analogous process wherein an aging process is also included with the annealing process and suggest the film is taken off a roll extrusion production line to be kept aside to complete aging (paragraphs [0083]-[0085] – dry process; [0095] and [0096] anneal and age in roll form for up to 100 hours). Further, Hamer makes clear that the purpose of annealing in the analogous art is to provide a recrystallization phenomenon as claimed (col. 4, line 47-col. 5, line 14).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Summey et al. and Nasu et al. and to have aged the extruded precursor/film of Summey et al. by taking the precursor/film offline, as suggested by Nasu, for the purpose, as suggested by Nasu, of improving the properties of the produced microporous film.
As to the annealing portion of the step, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Summey et al. and Hamer and to have annealed the precursor/film of Summey et al. such that a recrystallization phenomenon as claimed was achieved, as suggested by Hamer, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of achieving a known and desired result from the annealing step in order to facilitate formation of a desired microporous film from the subsequent stretching steps.
As to claims 2 and 3, Summey et al. teach the semi-crystalline material is a polyolefin, such as polypropylene or polyethylene (paragraphs [0014], [0112] and [0118]).
As to claim 4, Nasu et al. teach an annealing and aging time of up to 100 hours/over 4 days (paragraphs [0095] and [0096]). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 7, Summey et al. teach and suggest longitudinal stretching temperatures within or which overlap the claimed ranges (paragraph [0050]).
As to claim 8, Summey et al. teach and suggest transverse stretching temperatures within or which overlap the claimed range (Figure 1; paragraph [0050] giving cold/hot stretching temperatures and [0052])
As to claim 9, Summey et al. teach and suggest transverse stretching amounts that overlap the claimed range (Figure 1; paragraph [0052]).
As to claim 10, Summey et al. teach and suggest relaxation magnification in amounts within or which overlap the claimed range (Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0050], [0066] and [0067]; relaxation amount is a result effective variable impacting film properties that would have been readily optimized as a routine expedient).
As to claim 11, Summey et al. teach and disclose porosity values above 50% or below 90% (paragraph [0079]).
As to claim 12, Summey et al. teach and suggest air permeability amounts that are within or which overlap the claimed range (paragraphs [0017], [0076] – using a corresponding Gurley value measurement); Figure 11).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summey et al. (US 2021/0126319) in view of Nasu et al. (US 2015/0065595) and Hamer (US 4,620,956), as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Sawada (US 2016/0079580).
As to claim 5, the combination teaches and suggests the method set forth above. Summey et al. do not teach a second aging as claimed.
However, Sawada teaches and suggest a second aging can be performed after longitudinal stretching as claimed (paragraphs [0065]-[0067], [0105],[0110]-[0127] – wound on a roll and aged).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Summey et al. and Sawada and to have included a second aging as claimed in the method of Summey et al., as suggested by Sawada, for the purpose, as suggested by Sawada, of improving and tailoring the properties of the produced microporous film for a particular application.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summey et al. (US 2021/0126319) in view of Nasu et al. (US 2015/0065595) and Hamer (US 4,620,956), and further in view of Sawada (US 2016/0079580), as applied to claim 5 above, alone or further in view of MacDonald et al. (US 2015/0274907).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches and suggests the method set forth above, including a second aging step lasting an extended period of time/hours. Further, Nasu et al. suggest aging times of up to 100 hours.
The combination suggests a second aging step as claimed and the combination further suggests aging for hours and optimizing the second aging time to achieve desired results. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the aging time, including to lengths as claimed, as a routine expedient.
Alternatively, MacDonald et al. analogously further flesh out the annealing/aging relationship between time and temperature and make clear that lower temperatures with longer times (e.g. 3 to 7 days) or higher temperatures with shorter times are effective to achieve the desired annealing/aging results (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Summey et al. and MacDonald et al. and to have performed the second aging step for a period of time within the claimed range, as suggested by MacDonald et al., for the purpose, as suggested by MacDonald et al., of achieving the desired result in an art recognized suitable and equivalent alternative manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742