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
Claims(s) 1-15, is/are filed on 3/31/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 12-15 is/are withdrawn, 1-11 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation ‘polyolefin-based woven fabric.’ It is unclear what percentage of the fabric must be polyolefin, or whether the fabric is a blend, coated with it, or entirely made of it. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘based ‘from the claim.
Dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected.
Claim(s) 2 recites the limitation ‘polyethylene-based woven fabric.’ It is unclear what percentage of the fabric must be polyolefin, or whether the fabric is a blend, coated with it, or entirely made of it. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘based’ from the claim.
Claim(s) 5 recites the limitation ‘styrene-based thermoplastic resin’ It is unclear what percentage of the resin must be styrene, or whether the resin is a blend, coated with it, or entirely made of it. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘based’ from the claim.
Claim(s) 8 recites the limitation ‘styrene-based thermoplastic resin’ It is unclear what percentage of the resin must be styrene, or whether the resin is a blend, coated with it, or entirely made of it. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘based’ from the claim.
Claim(s) 10 recites the limitation ‘styrene-based anion-exchange resin’ It is unclear what percentage of the resin must be styrene, or whether the resin is a blend, coated with it, or entirely made of it. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘based’ from the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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, 3-4, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JPS’200 (JPS 5341200 B1).
Regarding claim 1, JPS’200 teaches an anion-exchange membrane comprising: a substrate made of polyolefin-based woven fabric (JPS’200 discloses in [0003] that the support material for the ion exchange membrane is a woven fabric comprising "polymers of one or more monomers selected from olefin monomers such as ethylene, propylene, and butene," which corresponds directly to a polyolefin-based woven fabric);
an anion-exchange resin (JPS’200 discloses that the resulting membrane is quaternized with methyl iodide to yield "an anion exchange membrane," with the resin portion [0003]),
the anion-exchange membrane having: an electrical resistance measured using 0.5 M NaCl solution at 25° C. of 1.0 Ω.Math.cm.sup.2 or more to 2.5 Ω.Math.cm.sup.2 or less (JPS’200 discloses this measurement condition throughout its examples, reporting resistance values measured in "0.5 N-NaCl at 25°C,"or “a resistance of 2.40 Ω in 0.5 N-NaCl” which is substantively within the range),
a bursting strength of 0.7 MPa or more to 1.2 MPa or less (JPS’200 reports burst strength values for its ion exchange membranes throughout its examples in units of Kf/cm² (kilogram-force per square centimeter). Converting to MPa: Example 3 reports "burst strength of 10 Kf/cm²" (approximately 0.980 MPa)), Example 5 reports "burst strength was 8.0 Kf/cm²" (approximately 0.784 MPa), and Example 1 reports "burst strength was 7.0 Kf/cm²" (approximately 0.686 MPa) [0003]),
a water permeation rate measured using pressured water at 0.1 MPa of 300 ml/(m.sup.2.Math.hr) or less (JPS’200 reports zero water permeation for its graft-polymerized ion exchange membranes in Examples 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, stating in each case that "no leak permeability was observed" or "leak permeability was 0" under hydrostatic pressure conditions),
an open area ratio of the substrate of 35% or more to 55% or less (, JPS’200 explicitly controls and discloses this parameter; referred to in JPS’200 as "porosity" or "void ratio" — across its examples. Example 1 of JPS’200 uses a woven polypropylene cloth with a "55% void ratio," which corresponds exactly to the upper limit of the claimed open area ratio range. Example 6 uses a polypropylene cloth with "porosity 30%," which is just below the claimed lower limit)
and a thickness of the substrate of 90 um or more to 160 um or less (JPS’200 discloses this parameter across its examples. Example 3, it teaches the thickness is 0.15 mm = 150 um (note the measurement unit ‘M’ is machine translation error, it should be in mm) Example 5 it teaches 0.13 mm = 130 um)
Regarding claim 3, JPS’200 teaches wherein the substrate is made of monofilament woven fabric of polyolefin (JPS’200 explicitly and repeatedly discloses this construction across its examples. Example 1 of JPS’200 uses "40-denier polypropylene monofilament" woven into an 80-mesh cloth as the substrate (support 2, 2'). Example 4 uses "420-denier polypropylene monofilament" woven into a 150-mesh cloth, and Example 8 uses "20-denier polypropylene monofilament" woven into a 170-mesh plain weave fabric. JPS’200 thus demonstrates repeated, deliberate use of monofilament construction as the preferred substrate form for its graft-polymerized ion exchange membranes).
Regarding claim 4, JPS’200 teaches having a current efficiency measured for sulfate ions of 40% or more, the current efficiency being measured after energizing a two-chamber cell having a configuration of anode (Pt plate) (1.0 mol/L aqueous sulfuric acid solution)/anion-exchange membrane/(0.25 mol/L aqueous sulfuric acid solution) cathode (Pt plate) and used as an electrolytic cell, for 1 hour at a liquid temperature of 25° C. at a current density of 10 A/dm.sup.2 (This is inherent as JPS’200 reports in Example 3 (the multi-chamber electrodialysis test) a "current efficiency (total ions) was 90%," and reports "transport fraction from the membrane potential" values of 98%–99.5% in Examples 3, 5, and 7. These values demonstrate the high ion selectivity of JPS’200's anion exchange membranes under electrochemical use conditions. The specific test configuration recited in claim 4 — using platinum plate electrodes, aqueous sulfuric acid solutions at the specified concentrations, and the stated current density, temperature, and duration — represents a standard electrochemical evaluation protocol for anion exchange membrane current efficiency. The claimed minimum threshold of 40% current efficiency for sulfate ions is not an independently selectable property but rather a result that flows inherently from the membrane structure — specifically from the ion exchange group density, crosslink structure, and resin-fabric composite architecture — all of which JPS’200 fully discloses. An anion exchange membrane constructed according to JPS’200's teachings, which demonstrates 90% total-ion current efficiency and transport fractions approaching 99%, would inherently exhibit at least 40% current efficiency for sulfate ions under the specified test conditions).
Regarding claim 10, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the anion-exchange resin is a polystyrene-based anion-exchange resin (JPS’200 teaches polystyrene-based anion exchange resins as the preferred resin system throughout its examples. Example 1 of JPS’200 uses a monomer mixture including "60 parts of styrene" and "70 parts of 2-vinyl-5-ethylpyridine" with divinylbenzene [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the anion-exchange resin has a crosslinked structure (JPS’200 teaches a crosslinking agent in making the ion exchange membrane. JPS’200 states in [0003] that the monomer mixture used to form the resin portion comprises "(1) a monomer having a functional group into which ion exchange groups can be introduced" and "(2) a crosslinking agent," and that suitable crosslinking agents are "polyvinyl compounds such as divinylbenzene, trivinylbenzene, divinylnaphthalene, and butadiene." JPS’200 further describes the resulting resin portion as having "a three-dimensional network structure" — which is synonymous with a crosslinked structure).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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(s) 2, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS’200 (JPS 5341200 B1) in view of JPH’156 (JPH 06322156 A).
Regarding claim 2, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the substrate is made of polyethylene-based woven fabric. (JPS’200 lists "ethylene" as one of the olefin monomers from which the support polymer may be constituted ([0003]), meaning that polyethylene woven fabric is explicitly within JPS’200's scope which would anticipate this. Alternatively, JPH’156 teaches that polyethylene provides superior durability under harsh use conditions [0007-0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated JPH’156’s teaching into JPS’200 for the aforesaid advantages.)
Regarding claim 5, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the anion-exchange resin contains a modified styrene-based thermoplastic resin elastomer modified by a polar group (JPS’200 discloses in [0003] that linear polymer substances including "styrene-butadiene copolymer" may be used as additives dissolved in the monomer mixture to form the resin portion. Examples 2 and 8 of JPS’200 specifically prepare the membrane using a mixture in which "styrene-butadiene copolymer" is dissolved in a plasticizer and incorporated into the polymerizable resin formulation, yielding a resin that contains a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer component.). JPS’200 discloses in [0003] the use of monomers bearing polar functional groups — including pyridine groups, carboxylic acid groups, and sulfonic acid groups — that are incorporated into or grafted onto the styrene-based resin backbone. JPH’156 similarly teaches in [0013] and [0015] the use of "maleic anhydride" and various carboxylic acid and acid anhydride monomers as components of the resin system. JPH’156 similarly teaches in [0013] and [0015] the use of "maleic anhydride" and various carboxylic acid and acid anhydride monomers as components of the resin system. Modification of a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer by polar groups was thus a known and practiced approach in the art. The motivation to use such polar-group-modified styrene elastomers is directly provided by JPH’156 ([0003]), which identifies the adhesion problem between non-polar polyolefin substrates and ion exchange resins, noting that "polyethylene is inherently a nonpolar resin" and that delamination between the resin and substrate occurred during use. Introducing polar groups into the styrene-based elastomeric component of the resin to improve adhesion to the polyolefin substrate would have been an obvious technical solution to this expressly identified problem.
Regarding claim 6, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the polar group is an acidic group or an acid anhydride group (JPH’156 teaches maleic anhydride [0013-0015]).
Regarding claim 7, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the acidic group is a carboxy group, and the acid anhydride group is a carboxylic acid anhydride group (JPH’156 teaches "maleic anhydride" — a carboxylic acid anhydride group-bearing compound — as a suitable monomer in [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the modified styrene-based thermoplastic resin elastomer modified by the acidic group or the acid anhydride group is a modified product obtained by modifying a polystyrene-poly(conjugated diolefin)-polystyrene copolymer or modifying a hydrogenated product thereof by the acidic group (JPH’156 expressly teaches both the unhydrogenated and hydrogenated forms of polystyrene-poly(conjugated diolefin)-polystyrene copolymers as components of the ion exchange membrane resin system. JPH’156 discloses in [0016] that suitable linear polymers include "styrene-butadiene copolymers," "hydrogenated styrene-butadiene copolymers," "styrene-isoprene copolymers," and "hydrogenated styrene-isoprene copolymers").
Regarding claim 9, JPS’200 teaches wherein: the polystyrene-poly(conjugated diolefin)-polystyrene copolymer is a polystyrene-polybutadiene-polystyrene copolymer (JPH’156 likewise explicitly names "styrene-butadiene copolymers" and "hydrogenated styrene-butadiene copolymers" in [0016] among the preferred linear polymers for the ion exchange membrane resin).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights