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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 5 February 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are currently pending.
Claims 10 and 12-16 are currently under examination.
Claims 1-9 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is herein maintained.
All other rejections are withdrawn as indicated below.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (CN 105733004 A as provided with the IDS dated 20 June 2025) in view of Lai et al (Cellulose (2014) 21:2757–2772) and Das et al (Das, Gautam, Bang Ju Park, and Hyon Hee Yoon. "A bionanocomposite based on 1, 4-diazabicyclo-[2.2. 2]-octane cellulose nanofiber cross-linked-quaternary polysulfone as an anion conducting membrane." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 4.40 (2016): 15554-15564).
As to claims 10, Feng discloses an anion exchange membrane (Title “a fully interpenetrating quaternized chitosan anion exchange membrane”), wherein the anion exchange membrane comprises a network formed by base complex fibers containing chitosan (Example 1 [0026] “quaternized chitosan powder…”) wherein the anion exchange membrane has an ion conductivity of 10 mS cm-1 to 200 mS cm-1 as a temperature from 260 M to 360 K (See Fig. 4).
Feng discloses the cellulose is bound to the chitosan (See Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly disclose the use of bacterial cellulose OR where the bacterial cellulose is bound to a functional group having two nitrogen atoms, the bacterial cellulose being bound via one of the nitrogen atoms of the functional group.
Lai discloses the specific use of bacterial cellulose in forming chitosan composite films (Title, Abstract) where the formation through bacterial provide high yields of cellulose production (pg. 2757 col. 2 last paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a specific bacterial cellulose as disclosed in Lai as the cellulose used in Feng because it is commercially available in high yields, has a close structural similarity to chitosan thus enabling their interactions (Abstract Lai), has higher purity, crystallinity, thermal stability, biocompatibility, tensile strength, and Young’s modulus when compared to plant based cellulose (pg. 2758 col. 1 Lai), where the use of bacterial cellulose is recognized for its intended use in forming a membrane with chitosan. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 B.
Das discloses using a quaternized bacterial cellulose nanofiber for used as an anion conducting membrane (title) where the bacterial cellulose is bound to a functional group having two nitrogen atoms, the bacterial cellulose being bound via one of the nitrogen atoms of the functional group. (Use of the DABCO functional group shown in Scheme 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a quaternized cellulose with the DABCO functional group of Das in place of the cellulose of Feng, as modified by Lai, because use of the quaternized cellulose allows for the adjustment of the ion exchange capacity and the ionic conductivity (Abstract Das) and high hydroxide conductivity of the membranes (Conclusions Das).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Lai is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant argues that Lai is not the same field of endeavor because they disclose using the membranes for different specific applications and not directly in as an electrochemical element. This argument because as applicant explicitly cited to at pg. 6 of the response citing to the MPEP 2141.01(a) stating: “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addressed a different problem)” (emphasis added). Applicant’s field of endeavor is drawn towards composition of chitosan and bacterial cellulose, their interactions, and membranes made therefrom. While Lai might address these compositions towards a different problem, as Applicant elucidates on pg. 7 of the response, it is directly analogous to the types of combinations of cellulose when used with chitosan. Lai explicitly relates the benefits of using bacterial cellulose with chitosan, as opposed to other derived cellulose types, as cited in the action above. Thus, Applicant’s arguments towards Applicant’s disclosure for use as electrode structures is not germane to the instant claims because the claims do not claim an electrode structure, but rather a membrane.
As to Applicant’s argument on pg. 7-8 with respect to no being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Applicant, this argument is not persuasive because to be analogous, only (1) OR (2) on pg. 6 need be satisfied. Since standard (1) is deemed satisfied, analysis of (2) is rendered moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9 of the response, filed 4 February 2026, with respect to claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12-16 has been withdrawn.
No further arguments are presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights