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 3, 17-18 cancelled
Claims 1, 16 amended
Claims 21-23 new
Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 19-23 pending
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 19-22 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 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], as the precursor of carbon fiber/PAN is used is step (a) [0098].
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).
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.
Consider Claim 2, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) teaches the water using for bonding having neutral pH, about 7 (Prezentace, page 15).
Consider Claim 4, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) 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 and Li) teaches the process of forming microporous layer as step (g) (Kajiwara, [0102]).
Consider Claims 6-8, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) teaches the fiber used in step (a) include PAN, lignin, pitch (Kajiwara, [0058]).
Consider Claim 9, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) 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 and Li) teaches the water used in the water jetting process is recycled (Prezentace, page 15).
Consider Claim 11, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) 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 and Li) teaches the process of calendering, using flat roller and heat treatment to 290℃ (Kajiwara, [0099]).
Consider Claims 13-15, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) 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 and Li) teaches the process the drying step to 130℃ after the impregnation/finishing with hydrophobic material (Kajiwara, [0101]).
Consider Claims 19-20, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) teaches the process of forming gas diffusion electrode/layer for fuel cell (Kajiwara, [0001]).
Consider Claims 21-22, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) teaches the water having pH less than 7, and 5-5500 micro Siemens/cm (Li, [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).
Claim(s) 23 is 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) and in further view of O’Neill (US. Pat. 5,935,441).
Consider Claim 23, the combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) teaches the using of DI water for hydrocharging (Li, [0103]).
The combined Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) does not teach the ions value in the used DI water.
However, O’Neill is in the prior art of forming DI water (abstract), teaches the formed DI water have essentially free of contaminants and contains from 1 to 5 parts per trillion total ions (less than 200 ppm), other than hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions (including Na+, K+, Mg+, Ca+) (Col. 5, lines 49-52).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kajiwara (with Prezentace and Li) and O’Neill to use ultrapure DI water, to provide with very low ion contamination as low as 1 ppt (Col. 5, lines 49-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, 19-23 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kajiwara with Prezentace and Li.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against the combined prior arts, on the ground that the instant application have critical benefits, since the present disclosure have a very low ion concentration, as there is a need to provide gas diffusion layers which have only very low concentrations of ions, especially metal cations, such as calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium ions, see figure 3.
However, this critical benefits are a result of a bonding process with water having very low ion concentrations (high purity) having very low alkali metal ion concentration used in step (c) as disclosed in paragraphs [0068]-[0074], in the instant application. Moreover, claim 1 does not require the used water to have low alkali metal ion, as argued, as the requirement for water having low alkali metal ion is in claim 23. Furthermore, the prior art O’Neill disclose the forming of high water purity with ion concentration between 1-5 parts per trillion (abstract).
The prior arts of Kajiwara and Prezentace and Li, on the grounds that combination does not disclose the hydroentanglement but hydrocharging (mainly Li); the combination does not disclose the water quality/purity for having a very low alkali metal ion concentration, although Prezentace discloses the use of pure water, Prezentace does not elaborate enough to disclose the parameters in claim 23, nor Prezentace disclose that the use of pure water would result in the claimed end product; the combined disclose the forming of “electret web” which is not the same as web used for fuel cell, and the charging using water or hydrocharging to enhance the electret charge, as Li discloser for hydrocharging is not the same is the instant application claim of hydroentanglement.
However, the prior art of Li discloses in [0053] that the operation is carried out at lower pressures in hydrocharging than generally used in hydroentangling. Therefore, there is a direct relationship between hydrocharging and hydroentangling. Also, the disclosure in prior art of Prezentace regarding the use of pure water is clear indication for the need to have/use water with low ion impurity, that would benefit from the modification of Li, and the later modification with O’Neill for using water with even higher purity up to 5 ppt of ions (for claim 23). Moreover, Li’s disclosure for forming “electret web” does not exclude the fact that the water (with the claimed pH and the claimed conductivity) was use to bond the fibers into a web, which would benefit Kajiwara’s bonding process [0098], as well. Furthermore, as stated above regarding Li, as Li discloses in [0053] that the operation is carried out at lower pressures in hydrocharging than generally used in hydroentangling.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights