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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 7/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1, the description of the steps illustrated by reference numbers 110-150 that are supposed to be in the designated boxes are not present on the Figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1, 3-10, 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakutani et al. (US 2017/0313831 A1)
As to claim 1, Kautani et al. teaches providing a substrate that constitutes a first layer of material (abstract) where an adhesive sheet comprising a layer of nanofiber nonwoven fabric and solidified thermosetting or thermoplastic resin is at least partially coated on the substrate (abstract, para 0027, 0030, 0110-0113) and where providing the adhesive sheet includes supplementing the fabric and resin layer with a plurality of nanoelements in a material different than the resin (fine fibers in paras 0027, 0033-0042 combined in the fabric para 0051-0053). The assembly is heated in para 0073, 0114-0115 as a finishing or curing step and fixing step. While Kautani does not explicitly state that this heating step causes a phase transition that generates micro and/or nanostructure accumulations of the resin, the finished product includes accumulations that leave spaces S in the fabric in para 0030. Therefore, it would be obvious that the claimed method steps such as heating, as taught by Kakutani, in combination led to spaces/accumulations in a structural manner and meets the claim limitations as broadly claimed.
As to claim 3, the nanoelements comprise fine fibers in paras 0027.
As to claim 4, the fibers are as claimed in para 0033-0048.
As to claims 5-6, the heating temperature is as claimed in the examples and para 0073, 0114-0115.
As to claim 7, the heating apparatuses used in para 0116 are designed to be used for more than one second.
As to claim 8, the heating type is taught in para 0116.
As to claim 9, the substrate is as claimed in para 0111.
As to claim 10, the nanoelements are dispersed in a slurry in paras 0130-0131 and fed to a papermaking machine that would include immersion or spraying.
As to claim 13, the diameter is as claimed in para 0018, 0039.
As to claim 14, electrospinning may be used in para 0048.
As to claim 17, a removable support layer (cover film) is taught in para 0114.
Claim(s) 2 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakutani et al. (US 2017/0313831 A1) in view of Sakuda et al. (JP 2019-173208 A)
As to claim 2, Kakutani does not teach the claimed resin. Sakuda teaches PVDF, for example in the ‘base nanofiber nonwoven fabric’ section and Example 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakutani to include PVDF as Sakuda teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claims 15-16, Sakuda teaches that electrospinning the fibers gives an optimal fiber diameter and produces large porosity in the ‘base nanofiber nonwoven fabric’ section. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakutani to include electrospinning its fiber layers as taught by Sakuda in order to have an optimal fiber diameter and porosity.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111214962 A, citations taken from attached translation)
As to claim 1, Li et al. teaches providing a substrate that constitutes a first layer of material (abstract) where an adhesive sheet comprising a layer of nanofiber nonwoven fabric and solidified thermosetting or thermoplastic resin is at least partially coated on the substrate (supporting layer, abstract, pp 3-4, Examples) and where providing the adhesive sheet includes supplementing the fabric and resin layer with a plurality of nanoelements in a material different than the resin (graphene oxide in the abstract). The assembly is heated on pp 3-4. While Li et al. does not explicitly state that this heating step causes a phase transition that generates micro and/or nanostructure accumulations of the resin, the finished product includes a porosity and wrinkled structure that results from the heating, indicating accumulations and structural changes of the heated material on pp 3-5. Therefore, it would be obvious that the claimed method steps such as heating, as taught by Li et al. to create porosity and wrinkles, led to spaces/accumulations in a structural manner and meets the claim limitations as broadly claimed.
As to claim 2, the material is taught on p 3.
As to claim 3, the nanomaterial is a nanoparticle in Example 1.
As to claims 5-7, the heating limitations are as claimed on p 5-6.
As to claim 8, the Examiner takes official notice that most heating is done by infrared or induction heating in these types of processes (as evidenced by the fabric made in Kakutani).
As to claim 9, the substrate is as claimed in the Examples.
As to claim 10, the nanoelements are provided as claimed in the Examples.
As to claim 11, the nanoelements are conductive (graphene) in the abstract.
As to claim 13, the diameter is as claimed on p 2.
As to claim 14, electrospinning is used on p 2 and the Examples.
Claim(s) 4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111214962 A, citations taken from attached translation) in view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2019/156157 A1, citations taken from attached translation)
As to claim 4, Li et al. does not teach two different nanofibers. Watanabe teaches two different types to modify porosity on p 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include another type of fiber as taught by Watanabe to modify porosity.
As to claims 15-16, Li teaches electrospinning. Watanabe teaches electrospinning its two different fibers on p 4 together and as sublayers as claimed for efficiency (p 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include electrospinning two different fibers as taught by Watanabe for efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed features combined with an aligned magnetic microstructure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights