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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/16/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the drawings and claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 is/are obviated by applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claim(s) 1, 8 and 25 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 17-18 and 20-26 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 17-18 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo et al. (U.S. 2021/0207275) in view of Romdhane et al. (U.S. 2007/0128425).
Regarding claim 1, Huo teaches a membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0005, line 3, bipolar membrane) comprising:
a) a first layer comprising a first polymer or a fourth polymer (see e.g. Fig. 10A, cation-conducting polymer layer 1011 of bipolar membrane; Paragraph 0005, lines 5-7, and Paragraph 0301, lines 6-7);
b) a second layer comprising a second polymer (see e.g. Fig. 10A, anion-conducting polymer layer 1009 of bipolar membrane; Paragraph 0005, lines 5-7, and Paragraph 0301, lines 5-6); and
c) a third layer comprising a co-continuous polymeric network of (i) a third polymer having ionic groups and a network of pores; and (ii) a fourth polymer having ionic groups of polarity opposite to the polarity of the ionic groups of the third polymer and being present within the network of pores of the third polymer (see e.g. Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019, shown with a network of pores, is mixed with interpenetrating cation-conducting polymer 1021, shown present within those pores; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0009, lines 20-25);
wherein the first polymer and the fourth polymer have ionic groups opposite to the polarity of the ionic groups of the third polymer (see e.g. Fig. 10A, cation-conducting polymer layer 1011 and cation-conducting polymer 1021; Paragraph 0301, lines 3 and 6-7);
wherein the second polymer has ionic groups of polarity the same as the polarity of the ionic groups of the third polymer (see e.g. Fig. 10A, anion-conducting polymer layer 1009; Paragraph 0301, lines 5-6);
wherein third layer c) is interposed between first layer a) and second layer b) (see e.g. Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1012 between cation-conducting polymer layer 1011 and anion-conducting polymer layer 1009; Paragraph 0005, lines 7-8, and Paragraph 0301, lines 1-7).
Huo does not explicitly teach the third polymer being phase-separated, but does teach the third and fourth polymers being interpenetrated with each other (see e.g. Paragraph 0007).
Romdhane teaches an ion-conductive membrane (see e.g. Abstract) in which a first polymer is interpenetrated within the microporous infrastructure of a second polymer by phase separation of the second polymer (see e.g. Paragraphs 0033-0034), this phase separation allowing for uniform filling of the micropores of the second polymer with the polymer in a single-step process (see e.g. Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third layer of Huo to have the third polymer phase separated with the fourth polymer filling its pores as taught by Romdhane as a suitable single-step process for providing two uniformly interpenetrating polymers in a membrane. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Huo teaches the third layer comprising an interface at the junction of the third polymer and the fourth polymer which is not an interface between a polymer and fused/compressed fibers, beads, or particles (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019 and cation-conducting polymer 1021 are mixed interpenetrating each other, with no fused/compressed fibers, beads, or particles; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0009, 20-25).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of “the phase-separated third polymer being a photopolymerization-induced phase-separated third polymer” is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."” There is no indication in the disclosure of a further specific structural difference implied by the phase separation of the third polymer being photopolymerization-induced as described in Page 5, lines 15-22. Modified Huo teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed membrane as stated above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Huo teaches the third layer c) comprising a porous support (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0302, material in the form of a web or mesh with gaps, i.e. pores, physically reinforcing the bipolar interface).
Regarding claim 6, modified Huo teaches the third layer c) being free from ionically charged fibers and beads (see e.g. Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019 and cation-conducting polymer 1021 are mixed interpenetrating each other, with no fibers or beads; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0009, 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, modified Huo teaches the third polymer providing a network of pores and the fourth polymer being present within the network of pores (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019, shown with a network of pores, is mixed with interpenetrating cation-conducting polymer 1021, shown present within those pores; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0009, 20-25). The third layer being “obtainable by a process comprising impregnating the network of pores with a composition used to make the fourth polymer and curing composition used to make the fourth polymer within the network of pores of the third polymer” is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."” The only structure implied by this process is the fourth polymer being present within the network of pores provided by the third polymer, which is taught by modified Huo as stated above. Modified Huo therefore teaches all structural limitations of the claimed membrane.
Regarding claim 9, modified Huo teaches the chemical composition of the first polymer being substantially the same as the chemical composition of the fourth polymer (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0301, lines 2-4 and 10-12, cation-conducting polymer of bipolar interface being the same as that of the cation-conducting polymer layer).
Regarding claim 17, modified Huo teaches a first interface at the junction of the first layer a) and the third layer c) (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, cation-conducting polymer layer 1011 contacting bipolar interface 1013) and a second interface at the junction of the third layer c) and the second layer b) (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, anion-conducting polymer layer 1009 contacting bipolar interface 1013) and both the first interface and the second interface being uninterrupted, without any gaps and/or spaces between the first layer a) and the third layer c) and without any gaps and/or spaces between the third layer c) and the second layer b) (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, the layers 1011, 1013 and 1009 of the bipolar membrane being melded together uninterrupted without gaps or spaces; Paragraph 0325).
Regarding claim 18, modified Huo teaches a third interface at the junction of the third polymer and the fourth polymer which is uninterrupted, without any gaps and/or spaces between the third polymer and the fourth polymer (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019 and cation-conducting polymer 1021 are mixed interpenetrating each other uninterrupted, without gaps or spaces; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0009, 20-25, and Paragraph 0325).
Regarding claims 20-22, the limitations of the processes by which the first, fourth, second and third polymers are each “obtainable by” are product-by-process limitations regarding how the polymers may be prepared. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."” There is no indication in the disclosure of a structural difference implied by these process limitations besides the polymers comprising ethylenically unsaturated groups and ionic groups. Modified Huo teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed membrane as stated above, and further discloses the polymers comprising units including ethylenically unsaturated groups and ionic groups (see e.g. Huo Paragraphs 0076-0077).
Regarding claim 23, modified Huo teaches the membrane being a bipolar membrane (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0005, line 3, bipolar membrane).
Regarding claim 24, modified Huo teaches all the elements of the membrane of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Huo does not explicitly teach the volume fraction of the third polymer in the third layer being from 0.1 to 0.9, but does teach the third polymer and fourth polymer being mixed and interpenetrating each other in the third layer (see e.g. Huo Fig. 10A, bipolar interface 1013 in which anion-conducting polymer 1019 and cation-conducting polymer 1021 are mixed interpenetrating each other; Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0009, 20-25, and Paragraph 0325), which would necessitate the volume fraction of the third polymer being greater than 0 but less than 1, encompassing the claimed range of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”.
Regarding claim 25, modified Huo teaches the third layer comprising a catalyst (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0311, catalysts present at bipolar interface).
Regarding claim 26, modified Huo teaches the first polymer and the fourth polymer comprising anionic groups (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0301, lines 2-7, and Paragraph 0233, cation-conducting polymer 1021 and cation-conducting polymer layer 1011 comprising negatively charged, i.e. anionic, groups) and the second and the third polymer comprising cationic groups (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0301, lines 2-7, and Paragraph 0202, lines 1-4, anion-conducting polymer 1019 and anion conducting polymer layer 1009 comprising positively charged, i.e. cationic, groups).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 over Huo, particularly regarding the third polymer being phase separated, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huo and Romdhane.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Huo does not teach the third polymer having pores and or the fourth polymer being present within the pores, instead only teaching the interpenetration as protrusions of one layer into the other fairly equally to form a mixture. This is not considered persuasive. The formation of “protrusions” is only one embodiment provided in Huo for how interpenetration can be achieved, with the formation of the mixture as a separate potential embodiment (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0009, lines 6-15 and 20-25). Fig. 10A of Huo shows an example of said mixture in which one polymer forms a matrix with open area, i.e. pores, in which the second polymer is filled (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0301, lines 1-4), as opposed to an embodiment shown in Fig. 10C in which protrusions of one extend into the other (see e.g. Huo Paragraph 0303, lines 1-4). The fact that they are shown distributed relatively equally within the interpenetration is not a feature excluded by the claim. Fig. 1B of the instant specification in fact similarly shows a relatively equal distribution of the third and fourth polymers, and Claim 24 recites the volume fraction of the third polymer in the third layer being 0.1 to 0.9, which encompasses an equal split of 0.5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795