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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1–20 are pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0151211 A1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (e.g., [0006]–[0008], [0130], [0145], [0147], [0153], [0154], [0156]. [0159], [0162], [0168], [0169], [0173], [0175]–[0177], [0179], [0180], [0182]–[0185], [0190], [0196], [0208], [0210], [0223], [0225], [0226], [0230], [0234]–[0236], [0240], [0246], [0247], [0250], [0251], [0254], [0256], [0257], [0259], [0260]). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "wherein R1-R10 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), a substituent of formula (b), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl." Claim 1, which claim 6 is directly dependent, recites the limitations "the polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) …
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A) … wherein each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a)." Claim 6 does not recite the limitation "wherein at least one of R1-R5 is the substituent of formula (a)," which was previously recited. It is unclear if the repeat unit of formula (B) includes at least one substituent of formula (a). Both formula (A) and formula (B) include R1-R5 and claim 6 defines R1-R5 but does not require at least one of R1-R5 to be a substituent of formula (a) as previously recited. Therefore, it unclear if the repeat unit of formula (B) includes at least one substituent of formula (a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez-Ibañez et al. (Unprecedented Improvement of Single Li-Ion Conductive Solid Polymer Electrolyte Through Salt Additive, hereinafter Martinez) in view of Kendrick et al. (Precision Polyelectrolytes with Phenylsulfonic Acid Branches at Every Five Carbons, hereinafter Kendrick).
Regarding claim 1, Martinez discloses a composition comprising:
a polymer blend comprising a polysolvent and a polymer (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22),
wherein a weight ratio of the polysolvent to the polymer in the polymer blend is about 10:90 to about 90:10 (TABLE S2, P7/C2/L13–22);
the polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
PNG
media_image2.png
305
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R1-R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
wherein each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
PNG
media_image3.png
313
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R' is a halogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); and
wherein n is 1 to 5,000 (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L1–12).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A)
Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A)
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20). Martinez and Kendrick are analogous because they are directed to polyelectrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the formula (A) of Martinez with the p5Ph of Kendrick to enhance the flexibility of the polymer.
Regarding claim 2, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer blend is a miscible polymer blend (FIG. 2, P6/C1/L25/C2/L9).
Regarding claim 3, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein R3 is the substituent of formula (a) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22), and
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are hydrogen (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22).
Regarding claim 4, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein R' is a perhalogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22).
Regarding claim 5, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein R' is a trifluoromethyl, and the substituent of formula (a) has the following structure (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22):
PNG
media_image4.png
287
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22).
Regarding claim 7, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer has a degree of substitution of the substituent of formula (a) of about 1% to about 125% (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 8, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer has a degree of substitution of the substituent of formula (a) of about 80% to about 120% (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 11, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the cation of the substituent of formula (a) comprises lithium (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 12, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer is a homopolymer (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 13, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polysolvent has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -40° C. or less (see PEO, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 14, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polysolvent comprises a poly(alkylene oxide) (see PEO, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 17, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer blend is in the form of a film (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22).
Regarding claim 18, Martinez discloses a device comprising a composition, wherein the device is a lithium-ion battery (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3-P8/C2/L6), wherein the composition comprises:
a polymer blend comprising a polysolvent and a polymer (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22),
wherein a weight ratio of the polysolvent to the polymer in the polymer blend is about 10:90 to about 90:10 (TABLE S2, P7/C2/L13–22);
the polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
PNG
media_image2.png
305
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R1-R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
wherein each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
PNG
media_image3.png
313
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R' is a halogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); and
wherein n is 1 to 5,000 (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L1–12).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A)
Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A)
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the formula (A) of Martinez with the p5Ph of Kendrick to enhance the flexibility of the polymer.
Regarding claim 20, Martinez discloses a method of forming a composition, the method comprising:
dissolving a polysolvent and a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) in a solvent to form a mixture (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22); and
removing at least a portion of the solvent to form a polymer blend (FIG. 2, P7/C1/L3–C2/L22);
wherein a weight ratio of the polysolvent to the polymer comprising the repeat unit according to formula (A) in the solvent is about 10:90 to about 90:10 (TABLE S2, P7/C2/L13–22);
PNG
media_image2.png
305
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R1-R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
wherein each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
PNG
media_image3.png
313
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R' is a halogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); and
wherein n is 1 to 5,000 (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L1–12).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A)
Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A)
PNG
media_image1.png
320
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (A) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the formula (A) of Martinez with the p5Ph of Kendrick to enhance the flexibility of the polymer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (Unprecedented Improvement of Single Li-Ion Conductive Solid Polymer Electrolyte Through Salt Additive) in view of Kendrick (Precision Polyelectrolytes with Phenylsulfonic Acid Branches at Every Five Carbons) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong et al. (Ultrahigh Li-ion conductive single-ion polymer electrolyte containing fluorinated polysulfonamide for quasi-solid-state Li-ion batteries, hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 6, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition:
wherein the polymer comprises repeat units according to formula (B) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22):
PNG
media_image5.png
493
786
media_image5.png
Greyscale
formula (B) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R1-R10 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), a substituent of formula (b), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22);
PNG
media_image6.png
551
825
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22)
wherein R' is a halogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22), and
wherein n is 1 to 5,000 (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22).
Martinez does not explicitly disclose:
PNG
media_image7.png
315
501
media_image7.png
Greyscale
formula (B).
Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A)
PNG
media_image7.png
315
501
media_image7.png
Greyscale
formula (B) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the formula (B) of Martinez with the p5Ph of Kendrick to enhance the flexibility of the polymer.
Further modified Martinez does not explicitly disclose:
X is a halogen, and
m is 1 to 10,000.
Zhong discloses a composition comprising a polymer comprises repeat units according to formula (B) (SCHEME 3, §2.2): (SCHEME 3, §2.2), wherein R1-R10 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), a substituent of formula (b), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (SCHEME 3, §2.2);
PNG
media_image6.png
551
825
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(SCHEME 3, §2.2) X is a halogen (SCHEME 3, §2.2); wherein at least one of R1-R5 is the substituent of formula (a) (SCHEME 3, §2.2), and wherein m is 1 to 10,000 (SCHEME 3, §2.2) to improve the ionic conductivity and electrochemical performance (see LFPP@PVDF SIPE, §4). Martinez and Zhong are analogous because they are directed to polyelectrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer of modified Martinez to include a substituent of formula (b) of Zhong in order to improve the ionic conductivity and electrochemical performance.
Claims 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (Unprecedented Improvement of Single Li-Ion Conductive Solid Polymer Electrolyte Through Salt Additive) in view of Kendrick (Precision Polyelectrolytes with Phenylsulfonic Acid Branches at Every Five Carbons) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mei et al. (CN 111019036 A1, hereinafter Mei).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 16, modified Martinez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a composition
wherein the polymer is at least partially cross-linked (see PSTFSILi, [0053]);
wherein the polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 1,000 g/mol to about 30,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]); and
wherein the polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 500 g/mol to about 2,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]).
Mei discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a composition comprising a polymer is at least partially cross-linked (see PSTFSILi, [0053]) and a polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 1,000 g/mol to about 30,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]), wherein the polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 500 g/mol to about 2,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]) to improve the strength, rigidity, and conductivity of the membrane (see this system, [0014]). Martinez and Mei are analogous because they are directed to polyelectrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to crosslink the polymer of modified Martinez and use the molecular weight of the polysolvent as taught by Mei in order to improve the strength, rigidity, and conductivity of the membrane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the R1-R5 positions in formula (B) correspond to the same positions in formula (A) and the requirement from claim 1 that each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) applies to the R1-R5 positions in formula (B) (P4/¶1). Claim 6 recites, after the introduction of formula (B), the limitation "wherein R1-R10 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), a substituent of formula (b), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl." Emphases added. Claim 6 has redefined and recited a broader range with respect to R-1–R5. The Office further notes claim 6 previously recited the limitation "wherein at least one of R1-R5 is the substituent of formula (a)." However, this limitation was deleted by the last amendment. Therefore, the R1-R5 positions in formula (B) do not correspond to the same positions in formula (A) and the requirement from claim 1 that each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) does not apply to the R1-R5 positions in formula (B).
Applicants argue blending a p5Ph-based polymer with a polysolvent at the claimed weight ratios is not taught or suggested by Martinez and Kendrick (P4/¶6). Martinez discloses a composition comprising a polymer blend comprising a polysolvent and a polymer (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22), wherein a weight ratio of the polysolvent to the polymer in the polymer blend is about 10:90 to about 90:10 (TABLE S2, P7/C2/L13–22); the polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); wherein R1-R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a substituent of formula (a), and a monovalent C1-C10 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); wherein each repeat unit of formula (A) includes at least one substituent of formula (a) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22) (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22) wherein R' is a halogenated C1-C5 hydrocarbyl (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L13–22); and wherein n is 1 to 5,000 (FIG. 2, P7/C2/L1–12). Martinez discloses a weight ratio (i.e., 73:27) completely within the claimed weight ratio range (i.e., 10:90 to 90:10). "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20). Therefore, Martinez and Kendrick teach and suggest blending a p5Ph-based polymer with a polysolvent at the claimed weight ratios.
Applicants argue Kendrick does not provide any suggestion that its polymers can or should be blended with PEO or any polysolvent (P4/¶7). Note that while Kendrick does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kendrick is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the p5Ph structure, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue the cited art provides no reason or motivation to combine the p5Ph structure of Kendrick with the polymer blend system of Martinez (P5/¶1). Kendrick discloses a polymer comprising a repeat unit according to formula (A) (FIG. 1, P2/C2/L19–P3/C2/L3) to enhance the flexibility of the polymer (P6/C2/L4–20).Therefore, Kendrick proves a reason and motivation to combine the p5Ph structure of Kendrick with the polymer blend system of Martinez.
Applicants argue the polystyrene backbone of Martinez already provides adequate flexibility for its intended purpose (P5/¶3). Martinez discloses flexibility is a property that is relevant the polyelectrolytes (e.g., abstract, P2/C1/L1–5, P2/C3/L39–51). Kendrick discloses the p5Ph structure improves the flexibility when compared with a polystyrene backbone (e.g., abstract, P1/C2/L31–35, P6/C1/L4–31, FIG. 7). Therefore, Kendrick suggest the p5Ph structure could improve the flexibility of the polystyrene backbone of Martinez.
Applicants argue Martinez teaches the flexibility is beyond satisfactory (P6/¶1). Martinez does not use the terminology that the flexibility is "beyond satisfactory." It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the flexibility is beyond satisfactory must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." Martinez discloses flexibility is a property that is relevant the polyelectrolytes (e.g., abstract, P2/C1/L1–5, P2/C3/L39–51). Kendrick discloses the p5Ph structure improves the flexibility when compared with a polystyrene backbone (e.g., abstract, P1/C2/L31–35, P6/C1/L4–31, FIG. 7). Therefore, Kendrick teaches a p5Ph structure could improve the flexibility.
Applicants argue Martinez discloses a PS backbone is not fully miscible with PEO which undermines "a miscible polymer blend" (P6/¶2). The pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. The plain meaning of the term "miscible" is forming a homogeneous mixture when added together (miscible, New Oxford Dictionary). Martinez discloses a composition that forms a miscible polymer blend (P6/1/L25–31). Therefore, Martinez does not undermine "a miscible polymer blend."
Applicants argue Martinez examines only a single composition with a mass ratio of polysolvent (PEO) to polymer (LiPSTFSI) of approximately 73:27 and does not teach or suggest the full range of weight ratios (P6/¶3). "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Applicants argue Zhong is a gel electrolyte that requires plasticizers to achieve its high ionic conductivity and is fundamentally different from the claimed solid polymer blend compositions that do not require such flammable, volatile solvents (P6/¶4). Claim 1, which claim 6 is directly dependent, recites "[a] composition comprising." The claims use the transitional phrase "comprising." The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP § 2111.03 I. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a solid polymer blend compositions that do not include solvents) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the claimed composition is fundamentally different from Zhong.
Applicants argue Mei does not cure the deficiencies of Martinez and Kendrick (P6/¶5). Martinez and Kendrick are not deficient as detailed above.
Applicants argue the cross-linking of Mei through divinylbenzene copolymerization during free radical polymerization of polystyrene is a fundamentally different synthetic approach from the ring-opening metathesis polymerization of Kendrick (P7/¶1). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the synthesis of the polymer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Mei discloses a composition comprising a polymer is at least partially cross-linked (see PSTFSILi, [0053]) and a polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 1,000 g/mol to about 30,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]), wherein the polysolvent has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 500 g/mol to about 2,000 g/mol (see polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, [0053]) to improve the strength, rigidity, and conductivity of the membrane (see this system, [0014]). Therefore, Mei in combination with Martinez and Kendrick suggest the features of claim 6.
Applicants argue there is no teaching or suggestion in Mei that these molecular weight parameters would be applicable or beneficial when combined with the structurally distinct p5Ph polymer of Kendrick (P7/¶2). Mei teaches and suggests these molecular weight parameters would be applicable or beneficial when combined with different polymers (e.g., [0067]). Therefore, there is a teaching and suggestion in Mei that these molecular weight parameters could be applicable and beneficial when combined with the structurally distinct p5Ph polymer of Kendrick.
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights