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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/791866 filed August 1, 2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 7, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umebara (US 2012/0183681).
Regarding claim 1: Umebara discloses an application apparatus which includes a gravure application apparatus (40) which is a first assembly that continuously applies a solvent (P1) to a surface of a base material (2) to wet the surface, and a number of stretch rolls (20, 11, 12) which apply a tensile force to the base material (2) wetted by the solvent (P1) while conveying the base material (2) through the apparatus (par. 29, 70-71, figure 6). Umebara discloses that the base material (2) can be made of any material and have any structure (par. 66-68, 75), so while Umebara does not explicitly disclose that the purpose of the apparatus is to promote crazing of a polymer, this limitation is considered to be an intended a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.0, 2114-2115. In the instant case, Umebara teaches that any base material can be used for any product, with this apparatus (pars. 66-68, 75) such that the apparatus is capable of being used to promote crazing of a polymer material.
Regarding claim 2: Umebara discloses a second gravure application apparatus (10) which can supply the same solvent (par. 58) and is parallel to the first gravure application apparatus (40) such that they are two parallel wetting rollers (par. 71, figure 6).
Regarding claim 3: Umebara discloses that the gravure rollers have an outer surface formed of a ceramic layer (13d) and patterned to absorb the application liquid (P1, P2) and then release it onto the base material (2) such that they are releasably absorbent surfaces (pars. 44-47, 73, figures 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 4: Umebara discloses that the stretch rolls (11, 12) are two consecutive sets of tensioning rollers (par. 29, figure 6).
Regarding claim 5: Umebara discloses the above apparatus, and teaches that the solvent can be the same compound as a later-used dissolvent in another agent (P2) (par. 58), with the dissolvent in that agent (P2) being one of a number of organic compounds such as N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), methylethylketone (MEK), and cyclohexanone, or water (par. 65), indicating that the solvent (P1) can be an organic ketone or amide, at least.
Regardless, the limitations regarding the contents and materials used by the apparatus remain intended use limitations, similar to the discussion above. In this case, the exact solvent used is intended use, and does not further structurally limit the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.0 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claims 6-7: Umebara discloses the above apparatus. As discussed above, the use of the apparatus- in this case, to promote crazing of a polymer material- is considered to be a statement with regard to the intended use of the apparatus, and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.0 and 2114-2115. In the instant case, Umebara teaches that any base material can be used for any product, with this apparatus (pars. 66-68, 75) such that the apparatus is capable of being used to promote crazing of a polymer material such a thermoplastic material selected from the group in claim 7.
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.
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 6-7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebara as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Biggs et al. (US 2015/0034237).
Regarding claims 6-7: Umebara fails to explicitly disclose that the base material (2) is a polymer such as a thermoplastic material or a material selected from the group of claim 7, however does teach that any base material can be used for any product, with this apparatus (pars. 66-68, 75). Further, Biggs et al. discloses a similar electrode material treated on a reel-to-reel apparatus which uses polymeric materials such as thermoplastic elastomers, olefins, styrenic copolymers, polyesters, polycarbonates, acrylates, and cellulosic polymers like parchment (pars. 3-4, 71, 87, 94, 96). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a material like that of Biggs et al. as the base material for Umebara because Biggs et al. teaches that such electroactive polymers are an ideal replacement for conventional electroactive materials such as electrodes (pars. 3-5), which Umebara is drawn to forming.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebara as applied to claims 1-7 above and further in view of Stover (US 5,208,098).
Regarding claim 8: Umebara is silent as to the movement rate of the base material (2) through the apparatus. However, Stover discloses a similar roller conveyed sheet treatment apparatus and teaches that the roll speed can vary from about 10 to 1500 feet per minute based on a number of process variables including material stiffness, strength, permeability, temperature, and other factors (col. 14 lines 40+). 10 to 1500 feet per minute equates to about 50 to 7620 mm per second.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a specific range of 25 to 100 mm/s for the material feed speed of Umebara because Stover teaches that this range is a result effective variable (col. 14 lines 40+) and simple optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
1/16/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717