CTFR 17/903,567 CTFR 86133 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment 1. In response to the amendment received on 2/18/26: claims 1-14 are presently pending claims 15-20 are withdrawn the objection to the Specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification all prior art grounds of rejection are maintained a mistake was made in the non-final action mailed 11/18/25 noting applicant’s election of claims 1-14 as without traverse; however, as pointed out by applicant the election was made with traverse and so corrected notice is provided herein Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/5/25 . 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 8/5/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups II and III are relate to using the ion exchange membrane according to claim 1 and so the groups are linked by a special technical feature with reference made to MPEP §1850 (see Election received 8/5/25). However , this is not found persuasive because the arguments are directed towards the unity of invention standard applicable for 371 applications and not the independent and distinct analysis required for US filed applications. As such, for the reasons as set forth in the restriction requirement mailed 6/13/25, the examiner is still of the opinion that the groups are independent and distinct for the reasons as set forth therein . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,073,752 to Ramp (hereinafter referred to as “ RAMP ”) in view of “Improving Performance and Antifouling Capability of PES UF Membranes Via Blending with Highly Hydrophilic Hydrous Manganese Dioxide Nanoparticles” by Gohari et al., Desalination 335, pages 87-95 (2014) (hereinafter referred to as “ GOHARI ”) with evidence from “Heterogeneous Structure and Its Effect on Properties and Electrochemical Behavior of Ion-Exchange Membrane” by Ariono et al., Mater. Res. Express 4, 024006 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “ ARIONO ”) as to the rejection of claim 6 only, and further with evidence from US Pub. No. 2010/0288370 to Volden et al., (hereinafter referred to as “ VOLDEN ”) as to the rejection of claim 7 only . Regarding claim 1, RAMP teaches an ion exchange membrane (see RAMP at Abstract; and also RAMP at Example 12 in col. 11 lines 40-57) comprising a cation exchange membrane (see RAMP at Example 12 in col. 11 line 42-43 teaching the use of a Nafion cation exchange membrane) having hydrous metal oxide nanoparticles incorporated therein (see RAMP at Example 12 in col. 11 line 44-52 teaching the soaking of the membrane in a metal chloride aqueous solution followed by treatment with KOH to form hydrous metal oxides particles which based off of the method of RAMP would be nanoparticles as claimed based on the use of a substantially similar process for forming the particles – see Example 12 compared with Example 1 of the Specification on pages 9-10). While RAMP teaches manganese as a possible metal (see RAMP at col. 6 lines 42-49), RAMP fails to explicitly teach the use of hydrated manganese oxide. However, GOHARI teaches the incorporation of hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles in a polymer membrane (see GOHARI at Abstract) and that the inclusion of the hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles acted to increase the antifouling property of the membrane (see GOHARI at page 87, 2 nd highlight and section 3.6 at page 94). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciated that hydrous manganese oxide could also be added to a cation exchange membrane based on the teachings of the prior art. Furthermore, besides the teachings of RAMP as to the incorporation of manganese, GOHARI would also motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate hydrous manganese oxide due to its high degree of hydrophilicity and the increased anti-fouling properties it is believed to impart. Moreover, since RAMP teaches the incorporation of hydrous metal oxides of platinum, palladium, ruthenium, and rhodium (see RAMP at col. 6 lines 64-65) and the potential of using manganese and other metals as well (see RAMP at col. 6 lines 42-49), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, or at least have considered it obvious to try incorporating hydrous manganese oxide in the cation exchange membrane in Example 12 of RAMP by using manganese chloride instead of the ruthenium chloride in the process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used manganese chloride in the process of example 12 in order to form a Nafion membrane having hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles incorporated therein as claimed. Regarding claims 2 and 3, RAMP as modified by GOHARI fails to explicitly teach the amount of manganese being within the range of milligrams per gram of the cation exchange membrane as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the concentration of the loaded hydrous metal oxide nanoparticles within the membrane as a property that it would have been obvious to have modified based on the desired properties of the membrane. Moreover, RAMP does teach varying the ion concentration as needed (see RAMP at col. 7 lines 8-14). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the concentration in order to arrive at membranes having the desired properties. As such, the concentration of the nanoparticles are not deemed to patentably distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claims 4 and 5, RAMP as modified by GOHARI teaches the ion exchange membrane wherein the hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles have the average particle size within the ranges as claimed (see RAMP at Example 12 at col. 11 lines 42-57 teaching a process of formation using the following steps of: (1) soaking the cation exchange membrane in an aqueous metal chloride solution; (2) the immersion of the membrane in KOH to form the hydrous metal oxide particles; and (3) washing of the membrane with water; see also RAMP at col. 7 lines 51-54 teaching the soaking for times ranging from 1 to 24 hours which is the process as disclosed in the Specification at page 8 lines 11-21). Consequently, since the same processing steps are performed under similar conditions, the nanoparticles formed would be expected to be within the range as claimed as well. Regarding claim 6, RAMP as modified by GOHARI teaches the ion exchange membrane wherein the ion exchange membrane comprises a gel phase and an integral phase (see RAMP at col. 11, lines 42-43, in Example 12 teaching the use of a Nafion cation exchange membrane; see also ARIONO at pages 4-5, starting at the last paragraph and carrying onto the following page, teaching polymeric membranes including a gel phase and integral phase as claimed). Regarding claim 7, RAMP as modified by GOHARI teaches the ion exchange membrane wherein the ion exchange membrane comprises pores (see RAMP at col. 11, lines 42-43, in Example 12 teaching the use of a Nafion cation exchange membrane; see also VOLDEN at ¶36 teaching Nafion being a porous material with pores of a size less than 10 nm). Regarding claims 8-10, RAMP as modified by GOHARI teaches the ion exchange membrane wherein the ion exchange membrane would have the properties as claimed. Specifically, the selectivity of the passage of phosphate ion (claim 8), including under concentration-driven or field-driven conditions (claim 9), with the selectively of phosphate over chloride, nitrate or sulfate being at least 30 times higher (claim 10) (see rejection of claim 1 above based on the teachings of RAMP in view of GOHARI which would result in hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles within a Nafion cation exchange membrane and therefore necessarily result in a membrane with the properties as set forth). Regarding claims 11-14, RAMP as modified by GOHARI teaches the ion exchange membrane wherein the cation exchange membrane comprises: a) a polymeric backbone having anionic groups attached thereto wherein the anionic groups are covalently bonded and comprise sulfonate groups; and, b) positive counterions wherein the positive counterions include K (see RAMP at col. 11, lines 42-43, in Example 12 teaching the use of a Nafion cation exchange membrane which is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based polymer, i.e. sulfonate groups covalently bonded, which when treated with excess KOH as set forth in RAMP at col. 11 lines 49-51 would result in potassium positive counterions as claimed) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the obviousness rejection of the claims based on RAMP in view of GOHARI and asserts that “the combination of Ramp and Gohari is silent regarding phosphate separation and hydrous manganese oxide (HMO)” (see Remarks at page 4, last two lines). While the examiner acknowledges that the grounds of rejection based on RAMP and GOHARI is silent as to the phosphate separation, the examiner must respectfully disagree that this failure has any bearing on the obviousness of the claims. It is noted that independent claim 1 is directed towards an ion exchange membrane, i.e. a composition of matter, that doesn’t say anything about phosphate separation. As such, to the extent applicant argues that the references don’t teach phosphate separation, these arguments aren’t commensurate with the scope of independent claim 1. As to the combination of the references not teaching HMO, the examiner also must respectfully disagree. It is important to note that the grounds of rejection as set forth by the examiner is based on a modification of an example of RAMP in light of other teachings of RAMP and GOHARI . Specifically, the rejection lays out the modification of example 12 of RAMP which discloses a process for the formation of hydrous ruthenium oxide within a cation exchange membrane (see RAMP at Example 12, col. 11 lines 40-57). The examiner points to teachings of RAMP itself that disclose the use of various metals including manganese (see RAMP at col. 6, lines 42-49). While RAMP itself doesn’t explicitly teach hydrous manganese oxide, it lists various other hydrous metal oxides as highly preferred (see RAMP at col. 6 lines 54-65 with a list of hydrous oxides of platinum, palladium, ruthenium, and rhodium). The examiner then points to GOHARI to show that hydrous manganese oxide was known to be included in polymeric membranes and then uses that teaching in combination with the general teachings of RAMP to modify Example 12 by using manganese chloride instead of using ruthenium chloride as the salt in the process which would result in the ion exchange membrane as claimed in independent claim 1. Applicant further argues the lack of motivation to combine RAMP and GOHARI and asserts that there is no teaching or suggestion as to why the incorporation of HMO nanoparticles would be necessary or beneficial (see Remarks at page 5, second paragraph). However, the examiner must respectfully disagree. As stated above on page 8, RAMP specifically teaches the use of a host of various metals, including manganese. Furthermore, RAMP teaches a process of incorporating hydrous ruthenium oxides into a cation exchange membrane in Example 12. As such, there is explicit teachings in RAMP itself as to the incorporation of manganese in a cation exchange resin. While the examiner points to the teachings of GOHARI (see Non-final Rejection at page 5, last paragraph) emphasizing the anti-fouling and other properties of hydrous manganese oxide, this would fit squarely within the teachings of RAMP and not contradict or otherwise go against the teachings of RAMP . Consequently, the examiner relies on the teachings of RAMP as set forth in the grounds of rejection, coupled with the teachings of GOHARI related to the fact that it was: (1) known to incorporate HMO nanoparticles within polymer membranes; and, (2) that the inclusion of HMO in the membrane resulted in improved properties including anti-fouling that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Example 12 of RAMP to include manganese chloride as the metal salt so as to end up with an ion exchange membrane having hydrous manganese oxide as claimed in independent claim 1. Applicant also argues that there would be no reasonable expectation of success (see Remarks at page 6, first paragraph). However, here also, the examiner must respectfully disagree. The rejection in not based on the replacement of the hydrous noble metal oxides of RAMP with the HMO of GOHARI as asserted. Instead, the rejection is on the basis of replacing the ruthenium metal chloride salt used in Example 12 to form hydrous ruthenium oxides in the membrane with a manganese metal chloride salt, which was also taught in RAMP (see RAMP at col. 6, lines 43-49 teaching metal reagents including chlorides of various metals of which one listed is manganese), so as to form a membrane with hydrous manganese oxide nanoparticles. Furthermore, since RAMP itself specifically teaches embodiments with hydrous metal oxides, there would seem to be a clear expectation of success since the modification is merely to do something taught by RAMP already. As such, for at least these reasons, the examiner is of the opinion that there is a reasonable expectation of success for the modification as set forth in the grounds of rejection herein. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET. 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. /BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 10 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/903,567 Page 11 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights