Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/873,746

GAS DIFFUSION LAYER MADE OF WATER JET ENTANGLED NONWOVENS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 11, 2024
Examiner
MAYY, MOHAMMAD
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Carl Freudenberg Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
194 granted / 408 resolved
-17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 17-18 cancelled Claims 1-16, and 19-20 pending and amended 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 1-16 and 19-20 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 1 states “subjecting the nonwoven to pyrolysis at a temperature of at least 1000° C. based on whether the fiber composition used in step a) comprises precursors of carbon fibers”. However, it is unclear what the “based on” include or exclude, as what would be the “based” if the fiber is not “precursors of carbon fibers”. Claim 16 state “the nonwoven is subjected to a thermal treatment during or after the coating”, (where claim 16 depends on 4, and claim 4 depends on claim 1) as none of the dependent discloses “coating”. Examiner’s Note For the prior art of Prezentace (Spunlace, 2020), the following screen shot of the web search, is used to provide the date of publicly available NPL. PNG media_image1.png 192 786 media_image1.png Greyscale 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(s) 1-2, 4-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiwara (PG Pub 2019/0165379 A1) in view of Prezentace (Spunlace, 2020). Consider Claim 1, Kajiwara teaches the process of forming gas diffusion electrode/layer for fuel cell [0001], using the following steps; step (a) of providing PAN fiber (precursor of carbon fiber) [0098], step (b) of forming web form PAN fiber [0098], step (c) of bonding the web into nonwoven using water jet punching [0098], step (d) of thermal treatment (to 290℃) and mechanical treatment (using metallic flat roller) for drying and bonding of the nonwoven fiber [0099], step (e) of pyrolysis using 2400℃ of the nonwoven obtained in step (d) [0110]. Kajiwara does not teach the pH for the water used for the jet punching process of the fiber web. However, Prezentace is in the process of Spunlace (hydro entanglement) for wen bonding (page 2), teaches the used water for jetting is recycled with a pH neutral (page 15), pH about 7. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kajiwara with Prezentace to use water having neutral pH, to prevent damage of water jet surface (page 15). Consider Claim 2, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the water using for bonding having neutral pH, about 7 (Prezentace, page 15). Consider Claim 4, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process include step of hydrophobic treatment using PTFE (as polymer binder) as further additive f3) for step (f) (Kajiwara, [0101]). Consider Claim 5, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process of forming microporous layer as step (g) (Kajiwara, [0102]). Consider Claims 6-8, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the fiber used in step (a) include PAN, lignin, pitch (Kajiwara, [0058]). Consider Claim 9, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process in step (b) to include carding and cross-layering (drylaying) for forming the web (Kajiwara, [0098]). Consider Claim 10, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the water used in the water jetting process is recycled (Prezentace, page 15). Consider Claim 11, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the water used for water jetting/bonding step is recycled (Prezentace, page 15), where it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art that the conductivity of the waste water stream is corrected/adjusting to the desired value (nominal value) based on the measured value (actual value) and that is after achieving the deviation value (as this deviation value is set based on the desired value) of the actual value, using know treatment processes for the recycling process of the water jet punching of the fiber web, using known engineering principles and routine experimentation. Consider Claim 12, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process of calendering, using flat roller and heat treatment to 290℃ (Kajiwara, [0099]). Consider Claims 13-15, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process hydrophobic treatment includes FEP as fluorine-contain polymer (f1), electrically conductive carbon particles (f2), and PTFE as polymeric binder (f3) (Kajiwara, [0043]-[0046]). Consider Claim 16, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process the drying step to 130℃ after the impregnation with hydrophobic material (Kajiwara, [0101]). Consider Claims 19-20, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the process of forming gas diffusion electrode/layer for fuel cell (Kajiwara, [0001]). Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiwara (PG Pub 2019/0165379 A1) in view of Prezentace (Spunlace, 2020), in further view of Li (PG Pub 2012/0017910 A1). Consider Claim 3, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) teaches the water jet punching (Kajiwara, [0098]). The combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace) does not teach the conductivity value of the used water. However, Li is in the process of forming nonwoven fibers (abstract), teaches the hydrocharging of the web using water jet stream [0052], having pH less than 7 and 5-5,500 micro Siemens/cm [0054]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kajiwara (with Prezentace) and Li to have the used water jet with the claimed/low conductivity, to provide the jetted process with a highly pure water (free of ions), having less conductivity. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, 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. /Mohammad Mayy/ Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603199
METHOD FOR IMPROVING ANTI-REDUCTION PERFORMANCE OF PTC THERMOSENSITIVE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595551
METHOD FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF PARTICLES OF A METAL POWDER AND METAL POWDER PARTICLES OBTAINED THEREBY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577732
METHOD OF MAKING FIRE RETARDANT MATERIALS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546010
Turbine Engine Shaft Coating
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546001
COMPOSITION FOR DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER AND METHOD OF DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
48%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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