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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a tape and an expanded tape, classified in D04H 3/007.
II. Claims 17-20, drawn to a method of making an expanded tape, classified in D04H 3/02.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, such as by a process that does not include expanding the machined matrix to form an expanded matrix.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Lotta Kiuru-Ribar on 6/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 9 includes reference character 740 not mentioned in the description (paragraph [0153] seems to mention step 750 instead), and FIG. 10 includes reference character 301 not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Figure 14 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “long-strand PTFE fibrils,” and “short-strand PTFE.” The terms “long” and “short” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. In particular, the term “short-strand PTFE” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the expanded matrix comprises 60 wt-% or greater of the active particles.” It is unclear what the claimed wt-% is with respect to.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “long-strand PTFE fibrils,” and “short-strand PTFE.” The terms “long” and “short” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. In particular, the term “short-strand PTFE” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 9-16 are rejected because they depend from claim 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the expanded matrix comprises 60 wt-% or greater of the active particles.” It is unclear what the claimed wt-% is with respect to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the expanded matrix comprises 80 wt-% or greater of the active particles.” It is unclear what the claimed wt-% is with respect to.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopf (WO 2020/210496 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Knopf teaches a catalytic composite that comprises porous supported catalyst particles durably enmeshed in a porous fibrillated polymer membrane (Abstract, [0063] and [0068]). In some embodiments, the porous fibrillated polymer membrane is perforated or otherwise contains mechanically formed holes therein (Abstract). In some embodiments, the fibrillated polymer membrane is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane or an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane having a node and fibril microstructure ([00061]). The fibrils of the PTFE particles interconnect with other PTFE fibrils and/or to nodes to form a net within and around the supported catalyst particles (active particles), effectively immobilizing them ([00061]). In embodiments, Knopf teaches forming porous fibrillated expanded PTFE (ePTFE) composite membranes that include supported catalyst particles durably enmeshed and immobilized within the ePTFE node and fibril matrix (Examples 1 and 2, from [000100]-[000112]).
With respect to the claimed limitations “long-strand PTFE fibrils forming an oriented network,” and “short strand PTFE,” Knopf teaches that the porous fibrillated polymer membrane may be formed by blending fibrillating polymer particles with the supported catalyst particles in a manner taught by several patents and patent applications, followed by uniaxial or biaxial expansion ([00061]). Knopf further teaches that uniaxial or biaxial expansion may be in a continuous or batch processes known in those of skill in the art and as generally described in U.S. Patent No. 3,953,566 to Gore and U.S. Patent No. 4,478,665 to Hubis ([00062] and Examples 1 and 2).
Gore teaches that FIG. 1 is a plan view of a section of an expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer as seen under a microscope (col. 6, lines 19-21). As shown in FIG. 1, an expanded, amorphously locked, porous material comprises a large plurality of nodes 11 which are oriented perpendicularly to the direction in which the expansion was effected (col. 6, lines 25-29). The fibrils which interconnected the nodes are oriented parallel to the direction of expansion (col. 2, lines 56-57). The examiner notes that FIG. 1 shows fibrils that are long relative to other shorter fibrils.
Knopf does not explicitly disclose an average pore opening of 50 micrometers or greater.
However, Knopf teaches that, in an embodiment, the catalytic composite 102 is needled and the perforations correspond to a needle diameter from 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm ([00064]). In another embodiment, the catalytic composite 102 is needle punched, with perforations corresponding to a needle diameter from 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm ([00064]). In some embodiments, the perforations extend fully through the film, and provide conduits for the passage of a substantial part of the fluid therethrough ([00065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the perforated membrane of Knopf with through pores that have an average pore opening size on the order of 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm because Knopf teaches using needles of this size to form the perforations, because it would be reasonable to expect that perforations of a size on the order of the diameter of the needles would be formed, and because doing so would provide conduits for the passage of a substantial part of the fluid therethrough (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11-12, Gore teaches that the fibrils which interconnected the nodes are oriented parallel to the direction of expansion (col. 2, lines 56-57 and FIG. 1). FIG. 1 is a plan view of a section of an expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer as seen under a microscope (col. 6, lines 19-21). The examiner notes that the longest strand PTFE fibrils in the illustrated section are oriented in the direction of uniaxial expansion. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected, based on the section of the expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer shown in FIG. 1, that the longest strand PTFE fibrils in the expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer would similarly be oriented in the direction of uniaxial expansion in the manner shown in FIG. 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 13-14, Knopf teaches that the supported catalyst particles may be on and/or in the porous fibrillated membrane in an amount greater than about 30%, greater than about 40%, greater than about 50%, greater than about 60%, greater than about 70%, greater than about 80%, or greater than about 90% ([00058]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15-16, Knopf teaches catalysts particles (Abstract). Catalytic materials may be substituted or included that are suitable for conversion of different contaminants, e.g., for remediating carbon monoxide (CO), Dioxin/Furan, ozone (O3), and other contaminants ([00063]).
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopf (WO 2020/210496 A1) in view of Gore (U.S. Patent No. 3,953,566).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Knopf teaches a catalytic composite that comprises porous supported catalyst particles durably enmeshed in a porous fibrillated polymer membrane (Abstract, [0063] and [0068]). In some embodiments, the porous fibrillated polymer membrane is perforated or otherwise contains mechanically formed holes therein (Abstract). In some embodiments, the fibrillated polymer membrane is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane or an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane having a node and fibril microstructure ([00061]). The fibrils of the PTFE particles interconnect with other PTFE fibrils and/or to nodes to form a net within and around the supported catalyst particles (active particles), effectively immobilizing them ([00061]). In embodiments, Knopf teaches forming porous fibrillated expanded PTFE (ePTFE) composite membranes that include supported catalyst particles durably enmeshed and immobilized within the ePTFE node and fibril matrix (Examples 1 and 2, from [000100]-[000112]).
With respect to the claimed limitations “long-strand PTFE fibrils forming an oriented network,” and “short strand PTFE,” Knopf teaches that the porous fibrillated polymer membrane may be formed by blending fibrillating polymer particles with the supported catalyst particles in a manner taught by several patents and patent applications, followed by uniaxial or biaxial expansion ([00061]). Knopf further teaches that uniaxial or biaxial expansion may be in a continuous or batch processes known in those of skill in the art and as generally described in U.S. Patent No. 3,953,566 to Gore and U.S. Patent No. 4,478,665 to Hubis ([00062] and Examples 1-2).
Gore teaches that FIG. 1 is a plan view of a section of an expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer as seen under a microscope (col. 6, lines 19-21). As shown in FIG. 1, an expanded, amorphously locked, porous material comprises a large plurality of nodes 11 which are oriented perpendicularly to the direction in which the expansion was effected (col. 6, lines 25-29). The fibrils which interconnected the nodes are oriented parallel to the direction of expansion (col. 2, lines 56-57). The examiner notes that FIG. 1 shows fibrils that are long relative to other shorter fibrils.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the porous fibrillated polymer membrane of Knopf with a uniaxially expanded structure comprising fibrils that are oriented parallel to the direction of expansion, with the fibrils comprising a combination of longer and shorter fibrils, because Knopf teaches that uniaxial expansion may be as generally described in Gore, and Gore teaches that such a structure is obtained.
Knopf does not explicitly disclose an average pore opening of 50 micrometers or greater.
However, Knopf teaches that, in an embodiment, the catalytic composite 102 is needled and the perforations correspond to a needle diameter from 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm ([00064]). In another embodiment, the catalytic composite 102 is needle punched, with perforations corresponding to a needle diameter from 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm ([00064]). In some embodiments, the perforations extend fully through the film, and provide conduits for the passage of a substantial part of the fluid therethrough ([00065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the perforated membrane of Knopf with through pores that have an average pore opening size on the order of 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm because Knopf teaches using needles of this size to form the perforations, because it would be reasonable to expect that perforations of a size on the order of the diameter of the needles would be formed, and because doing so would provide conduits for the passage of a substantial part of the fluid therethrough (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11-12, Gore teaches that the fibrils which interconnected the nodes are oriented parallel to the direction of expansion (col. 2, lines 56-57 and FIG. 1). FIG. 1 is a plan view of a section of an expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer as seen under a microscope (col. 6, lines 19-21). The examiner notes that the longest strand PTFE fibrils in the illustrated section are oriented in the direction of uniaxial expansion. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected, based on the section of the expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer shown in FIG. 1, that the longest strand PTFE fibrils in the expanded, amorphously locked tetrafluoroethylene polymer would similarly be oriented in the direction of uniaxial expansion in the manner shown in FIG. 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 13-14, Knopf teaches that the supported catalyst particles may be on and/or in the porous fibrillated membrane in an amount greater than about 30%, greater than about 40%, greater than about 50%, greater than about 60%, greater than about 70%, greater than about 80%, or greater than about 90% ([00058]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15-16, Knopf teaches catalysts particles (Abstract). Catalytic materials may be substituted or included that are suitable for conversion of different contaminants, e.g., for remediating carbon monoxide (CO), Dioxin/Furan, ozone (O3), and other contaminants ([00063]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopf (WO 2020/210496 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Eves et al. (US 11,078,821 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Knopf remains as applied above.
Knopf does not explicitly disclose wherein the machined matrix has a density of the plurality of through pores and the density is 1 pore per square cm to 1000 pores per square cm.
However, Eves teaches a catalytic composite 100, including a porous catalytic fluoropolymer film 102 and a felt batt 104 (col. 6, lines 1-3). Perforations 118 are spaced throughout the fluoropolymer film 102 with a perforation density on the order of 185 to 558 holes per cm2, or from 1 to 64 holes per cm2 (cols. 6-7, lines 66-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the perforations in the porous fibrillated polymer membrane with a perforation density on the order of 185 to 558 holes per cm2, or from 1 to 64 holes per cm2, in order to permit fluid to pass readily through the fluoropolymer film while still interacting sufficiently with the catalytic material of the film to remediate contamination in the fluid stream (Eves: col. 6, lines 26-54, and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Eves teaches that, in one embodiment, the catalytic composite 100 has a Frazier number of 2 or higher, corresponding to a flow rate of 2 CFM at 0.5 in H2O (125 Pa, as calculated by the examiner), or 0.61 m/min at 124.5 Pa under the Frazier Air Permeability Test (col. 7, lines 12-16).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopf (WO 2020/210496 A1) in view of Gore (U.S. Patent No. 3,953,566), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Eves et al. (US 11,078,821 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Knopf in view of Gore remains as applied above.
Knopf in view of Gore does not explicitly disclose wherein the machined matrix has a density of the plurality of through pores and the density is 1 pore per square cm to 1000 pores per square cm.
However, Eves teaches a catalytic composite 100, including a porous catalytic fluoropolymer film 102 and a felt batt 104 (col. 6, lines 1-3). Perforations 118 are spaced throughout the fluoropolymer film 102 with a perforation density on the order of 185 to 558 holes per cm2, or from 1 to 64 holes per cm2 (cols. 6-7, lines 66-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the perforations in the porous fibrillated polymer membrane with a perforation density on the order of 185 to 558 holes per cm2, or from 1 to 64 holes per cm2, in order to permit fluid to pass readily through the fluoropolymer film while still interacting sufficiently with the catalytic material of the film to remediate contamination in the fluid stream (Eves: col. 6, lines 26-54, and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Eves teaches that, in one embodiment, the catalytic composite 100 has a Frazier number of 2 or higher, corresponding to a flow rate of 2 CFM at 0.5 in H2O (125 Pa, as calculated by the examiner), or 0.61 m/min at 124.5 Pa under the Frazier Air Permeability Test (col. 7, lines 12-16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights