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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claim 1-14, in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Within the elected Claims 1–14, Claims 3 and 4 depend on Claim 2 and recite mutually exclusive species of the ion exchange polymer/membrane matrix material, namely a cation exchange matrix (Claim 3) versus an anion exchange matrix (Claim 4). See MPEP § 806.04(f). A single homogeneous membrane matrix cannot simultaneously possess both fixed negative charges for cation exchange and fixed positive charges for anion exchange without charge neutralization.
Further, the sulfonated polysulfone matrix recited in Claim 6 corresponds to the cation exchange species, and Claim 6 is considered with the cation exchange species for election purposes. A search and examination burden exists because the cation exchange and anion exchange species require different fixed charge chemistries and would require different search terms, classifications, and fields of prior art. Therefore, Applicant is required to elect one species for examination, and Claims directed to the non-elected species will be withdrawn from further consideration (MPEP § 803).
For examination purposes in the present action, pending Applicant’s election of a species, examination is conducted on the cation exchange species under the branch of Claim 2, including Claims 3, 5, and 6. Claim 4 is held in abeyance pending election.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 63/079457, filed on September 16, 2020; has PRO 63/118322, filed on November 25, 2020; is 371 of PCT/US2021/050738, filed on September 16, 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “is a anion exchange material” should be corrected to read “is an anion exchange material” to correct an indefinite article error.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “matrix material[[s]] is made from” should be corrected to read “matrix material is made from” to correct internal consistency and grammar.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “(C1–C5)-O-(C₁–C₆)alkyl” should be corrected to read “(C₁–C₅)-O-(C₁–C₆)alkyl” to correct formatting of subscripts in the chemical notation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 limitation “bind with a high specificity.” The term “high specificity” is a subjective degree term because the claim does not define what level of binding selectivity qualifies as “high” or what objective metric and test condition is used to determine specificity. The Specification uses the same “high specificity” phrasing (¶¶[0010]–[0011]), but does not provide an objective metric, threshold, or test protocol that would set clear boundaries for when binding is “high specificity” versus not. Claims 2–14, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ZHANG et al. (Anion Substitution in Porous Aromatic Frameworks Boosting Molecular Permeability and Selectivity for Membrane Acetylene Separation, June 21, 2020, hereinafter ZHANG).
Regarding Claim 1, ZHANG discloses an anion substitution strategy in an ionic porous aromatic framework (iPAF-1), where F⁻ and OH⁻ replace Cl⁻ while retaining high porosity, and the basic anions confined in the pores attract acidic acetylene strongly and preferentially, and the prepared membranes exhibit improved acetylene separation performance, including sevenfold acetylene permeability and fivefold permselectivity for acetylene over ethylene and ethane (Abstract, Pg. 1).
The anion substitution in iPAF-1 is carried out by ion exchange, where OH⁻ and F⁻ anions are chosen as the counter ions to replace the parent Cl⁻, and the small anion diameters preserve the pore volume of the parent material, and for membrane applications iPAF-1 is further processed into mixed matrix membranes through incorporation of nanoparticles in a polymer matrix, with gas separation properties investigated by permeations of C₂H₂, C₂H₄, and C₂H₆ unary and binary gases (Pg. 2, Col. 1).
The mixed matrix membranes are fabricated using iPAF-1-OH as the representative filler, where iPAF-1-OH fillers are blended with 6FDA-ODA to yield a free-standing continuous membrane, and iPAF-1-OH particles are tightly embedded in 6FDA-ODA with no visible phase segregation, and the iPAF-1-OH/6FDA-ODA mixed matrix membranes show improved C₂H₂/C₂H₄ permselectivity from 2.4 to 12.1 owing to the OH⁻ functionality within the PAF’s pore (Pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. ZHANG discloses that the particle size of iPAF-1-OH in ethanol is analyzed to be 44 ± 13 nm (e.g., 31 nm to 57 nm; Pg. 4, Col. 2), which overlaps the claimed particle size range “from 50 nm to 300 nm in diameter.”
Regarding Claim 8, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. ZHANG discloses that incorporating iPAF-1-OH nanoparticles into 6FDA-ODA yielded a free standing and continuous membrane with an even iPAF-1-OH distribution (Pg. 4, Col. 2).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. ZHANG discloses mixed matrix membranes with different iPAF-1-OH contents of 6 wt.% to 21 wt% (Pg. 4, Col. 2), which is within the claimed PAF loading range “from 5 wt. % to 40 wt. %” (Claim 9) and overlaps the claimed PAF loading range “from 10 wt. % to 25 wt. %” (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. ZHANG discloses that the porous aromatic framework is an ionic porous aromatic framework (iPAF 1) constructed by crosslinking cationic imidazolium based tetrahedral monomers, including the monomer 4-bromo-3-(3-methyl-imidazole-methyl) phenyl tris(4-bromophenyl) methane (iTBPM) (Pg. 2; Scheme 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scheme 1 of ZHANG et al.
Scheme 1 illustrates that the framework includes a tetrahedral central carbon bonded to four phenyl arms that are coupled to form the porous aromatic framework network, and a phenyl arm bearing a 3 methyl-imidazole-methyl substituent corresponding to a methylene linked imidazole heterocycle substituent on the aromatic linker, as it is marked by the dash-line circle on the figure. This structure corresponds to a tetrahedral carbon node and an aromatic linker having a coupled biphenyl backbone with a methylene linked imidazole heterocycle substituent within the scope of Claim 11.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZHANG, F.X. et al. (CN110336052A, hereinafter 052A).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. However, ZHANG does not explicitly disclose the composite membrane is “ion exchange” (Claim 2), is “cation exchange” (Claim 3), a material listed in Claim 5, nor that the narrowed material is “sulfonated polysulfone” (Claim 6).
052A discloses a hybrid matrix type cation exchange membrane (¶[0002]). The sulfonated modified polymers include sulfonated polyether ether ketone (SPEEK), perfluoro sulfonic acid membrane (Nafion), or sulfonated polysulfone (SPES), etc. (¶[0014]).
The sulfonated modified polymer is prepared by dissolving the polymer in concentrated sulfuric acid, precipitating into ice water, washing to neutrality, and drying to obtain the sulfonated modified polymer, where sulfonation provides sufficient proton exchange sites. (¶[0017]).
The mixed matrix type cation membrane is prepared by adding sulfonated polysulfone and TpBD-Me₂ to NMP and stirring to disperse, casting the obtained casting solution onto a clean and flat glass plate and allowing it to flow into a film, peeling off the film from the glass plate and immersing it in H₂SO₄ solution, washing away the free ions on the film surface, and obtaining a mixed matrix type cation membrane comprising TpBD-Me₂ dispersed in sulfonated polysulfone. (¶[0064]).
Advantageously, the cation exchange membrane by 052A addresses poor ion selectivity, tensile strength, and swelling resistance by introducing functionalized framework materials into polymers containing sulfonate groups to provide ion selectivity and size stability. (¶[0010]). In view of ZHANG’s mixed matrix membrane that incorporates porous framework particles into a polymer matrix, a person skilled in the art would substitute the polymer matrix material in ZHANG’s mixed matrix membrane with 052A’s sulfonated ion exchange polymer matrix material to obtain an ion exchange composite membrane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the sulfonated polysulfone ion exchange polymer matrix material, as disclosed by 052A, in the polymer matrix of the composite membrane by ZHANG.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends on Claim 2, is held in abeyance pending Applicant’s election of a species, as set forth above.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LI et al. (Mercury nano-trap for effective and efficient removal of mercury(II) from aqueous solution, 2014, hereinafter LI).
Regarding Claims 12, 13 and 14, ZHANG discloses the composite membrane of Claim 1. However, ZHANG does not explicitly disclose that the PAFs are "selected from PAF-1, PAF-1-CH3, PAF-1-CH2OH, PAF-1-CH2-phthalimide, PAF-1-CH2N═CMe2, PAF-1-CH2Cl, PAF-1-SH, PAF-1-ET (wherein ET is 2-(methylthio)ethan-1-ol), PAF-1-NMDG (wherein NMDG is N-methyl-D-glucamine), PAF-1-SMe, PAF-1-CH2NH2, and PAF-1-CH2AO (wherein AO is an amidoxime group)" (Claim 12), nor "selected from PAF-1-SH, PAF-1-ET, PAF-1-NMDG, PAF-1-SMe, PAF-1-CH2NH2, and PAF-1-CH2AO" (Claim 13), nor "bind with a high specificity to a targeted ion selected from Hg²⁺, Nd³⁺, Cu²⁺, UO₂²⁺, B(OH)₃, Fe³⁺, and AuCl₄⁻" (Claim 14).
LI discloses a porous organic polymer based mercury “nano-trap” made by functionalizing porous aromatic framework 1, also known as porous polymer network 6, with thiol groups that are well-known to bind Hg(II) strongly, where the thiol-functionalized porous aromatic framework 1 is formed by chloromethylation followed by treatment with sodium hydrosulfide (Pg. 2, Col. 2).
In Hg(II) sorption studies, PAF-1-SH rapidly capture Hg(II) ions, where the residual Hg(II) concentration in solution was smaller than 0.4 ppb., a single treatment can reduce mercury concentration to well below acceptable limits in drinking water standards, and the distribution coefficient Kd is among the highest for sorbent materials for Hg(II) adsorption reported thus far (Pg. 3, Col. 1).
In selectivity tests, PAF-1-SH effectively adsorbs Hg(II), and other background metal ions Ca(II), Zn(II), Mg(II) and Na(I) do not quite bind to PAF-1-SH, such that PAF-1-SH remains effective in the presence of high concentrations of these ions (Pg. 4, Col. 2).
Advantageously, the PAF-1-SH disclosed by LI remains effective in the presence of high concentrations of background metal ions Ca(II), Zn(II), Mg(II), and Na(I) while effectively adsorbing Hg(II) (Pg. 4, Col. 2). In view of ZHANG’s mixed matrix membrane, a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to substitute LI’s PAF-1-SH particles for ZHANG’s iPAF-1-OH particles in the composite membrane to achieve high specificity for binding Hg²⁺ ions in the presence of competing background ions, while retaining the membrane’s overall structure and processability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the PAF-1-SH particles, disclosed by LI, as the embedded porous aromatic framework particles in the composite membrane of ZHANG.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777