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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed December 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 23 are currently amended. Claims 26-31 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 10-22 have been canceled. Claims 32 and 33 are new. Claims 1-9, 23-25, 32 and 33 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 24, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadobayashi et al. (US 2013/0030080), as further evidenced by Her et al. (US 2015/0293634), van Doorn et al. (US 5,993,695), and Poelma (US 2023/0129561).
Regarding claim 1, Kadobayashi et al. teach a mixture capable of/for forming an anion exchange membrane, the mixture comprising: a rigid oligomer having multiple polar substituents (paragraph [0058] and [0083]; tri-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA)); an active monomer comprising an acrylate group and a functional group configured to be substituted with a cation group (paragraph [0058] and [0083]; bis-GMA, wherein the hydroxyl groups of the bis-GMA are understood to be configured to/capable of being substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer; hydroxyl groups may not be generally considered ideal or good leaving groups, but they are leaving groups broadly defined and neither the claim nor the specification requires a particular leaving group; any leaving group that would be capable of leaving as claimed is understood to read upon the recitation); a photoinitiator capable of/for initiating polymerization (paragraphs [0049], [0061], [0065], [0069] and [0083]) and a photoabsorber for/capable of reducing light penetration into the mixture (paragraphs [0023] and [0070]; e.g. titanium oxide and titanium white, as well as other recited materials, are photoabsorbers; paragraph [0074] – disclosing a UV absorber, which is a material that absorbs ultraviolet light, i.e. it is understood to be a photoabsorber by its description; such as a benzophenone composition). As evidenced by Her et al. (paragraphs [0150]-[0152]; titanium oxide is a light absorber), van Doorn et al. (col. 6, lines 22-31; titanium white is a light absorber), and Poelma (paragraph [0075]; titanium dioxide and benzophenones are photoabsorbers) the compositions disclosed by Kadobayashi et al. have multiple sources of materials that read upon the claimed “photoabsorber” (i.e. the generically disclosed UV absorber at paragraph [0074], the titanium oxide disclosed at paragraph [0023], and the titanium white disclosed at paragraph [0070])
The recitation “for forming an anion exchange membrane” in the preamble is a statement of purpose or intended use and is not considered to be a limitation in the claims (see MPEP 2111.02 I & II). To the extent the recitation could be understood to be a limitation, the recitation only limits the scope of the claim such that the recited materials would be capable of forming an anion exchange membrane (see MPEP 2111.01 I & II). Similarly, the language “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”, is language that described the stated purpose or the intended use of the active monomer. An active monomer having the claimed structure and that is capable of being substituted with a cation group to functionalize a polymer that could be formed from the mixture as claimed, reads upon the scope of the claimed invention. Since Kadobayashi discloses the same materials as claimed. These same materials would be capable of “forming an anion exchange membrane comprising a polymer network” and the corresponding active monomer is “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”.
As to claim 2, the amended claim does not require the presence of a cation group. The active monomer must merely be capable of being substituted with the recited cation group. The functional group of Kadobayashi et al. is understood to be capable of such a substitution as it is a leaving group.
As to claim 7, Kadobayashi et al. teach the rigid oligomer is a diacrylate oligomer (paragraph [0058] and [0083]; tri-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA)).
As to claim 24, Kadobayashi et al. teach the same claimed mixture. This mixture is configured to/capable of forming a self-supporting structure using a stereolithography technique. The same materials can be processed in the same manner.
As to claims 32 and 33, Kadobayashi et al. disclose the same claimed and disclosed mixture. It follows from a technical and rational basis that the same mixture will have the same properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 23, 25, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadobayashi et al. (US 2013/0030080), as further evidenced by or in view of Her et al. (US 2015/0293634), van Doorn et al. (US 5,993,695), and Poelma (US 2023/0129561), as applied to claims 1, 2, 7, 24, 32 and 33 above. Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 33.
As to claims 23 and 33, Kadobayashi et al. suggest amounts of the photoabsorbers (paragraphs [0070] and [0073] – select the amounts of materials such as titanium white, to achieve the desired color). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Further, Poelma suggest amounts of UV absorbers/photoabsorbers to be utilized that overlap the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kadobayashi et al. and Poelma and to have utilized the amount of UV absorber/photoabsorber as claimed in the mixture of Kadobayashi et al., as suggested by Poelma, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of achieving a desired degree of UV absorbing capability. The amount of material suggested is within or overlaps the claimed and disclosed range. It follows that the same claimed effect will be realized.
As to claim 25, Kadobayashi et al. suggest amounts of the photoinitiator that overlap the claimed range (paragraph [0061]-[0068]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-7, 9, 23-25, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwa (US 2,862,892), in view of any one of Kamada et al. (US 2018/0044491), Li et al. (US 2016/0207796), or Matsuoka et al. (US 2004/0137297), and further in view of Poelma (US 2023/0129561) and either one of Gacek et al. (US 2020/0307072) or Kraft et al. (US 2020/0238247).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-7, Hwa teaches a mixture capable of/for forming an anion exchange membrane comprising a polymer network (col. 1, lines 15-19; anion-exchange resin is ultimately produced and is capable of being formed into an anion exchange membrane) comprising a rigid oligomer having multiple polar substituents (col. 2, lines 60-col. 3, line 9; in particular col. 2, lines 68-69 – “ethylene glycol diacrylate or dimethacrylate” and Example 1(b) – “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate”; e.g. there are 4 oxygens in ethylene glycol diacrylate and this counting corresponds with the counting approach set forth in Applicant’s Figure 3 where element (302) points to the polar substituents in the composition); an active monomer comprising an acrylate group and a halide functional group configured to be substituted with a cation group (col. 2, lines 45-59; Examples 1(a) and 1(b) where the monomer is 3-chloro-2-hydroxy-propyl methacrylate) and a polymerization initiator (col. 3, lines 37-52; Examples 1(a) and 1(b); benzoyl peroxide; as evidenced by Gacek et al. (paragraph [0062]) and Kraft et al. (paragraph [0228]), benzoyl peroxide is a “photoinitiator” that is capable of initiating polymerization).
Hwa does not explicitly teach a photoabsorber capable of/for reducing light penetration into the mixture. However, each of Kamada et al. (paragraphs [0083] and [0094], disclosing that it is conventional in the art to add materials like UV absorbers and titanium dioxide to the composition), Li et al. (Abstract; paragraph [0020]; Figures 1 and 4 – showing the inclusion of titanium dioxide in an analogous composition), or Matsuoka et al. (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0020], [0043] – showing the inclusion of titanium dioxide in an analogous composition). Further, Poelma (paragraph [0075]) discloses titanium dioxide is a photoabsorber and discloses suitable amounts for use.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Hwa and any one of Kamada et al., Li et al., and Matsuoka et al. and Poelma and to have utilized a photoabsorber (e.g. UV absorber, titanium dioxide) in the mixture of Hwa, as suggested by the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving the properties of the finally produced resin/membrane in an art recognized suitable manner.
The recitation “for forming an anion exchange membrane” in the preamble is a statement of purpose or intended use and is not considered to be a limitation in the claims (see MPEP 2111.02 I & II). To the extent the recitation could be understood to be a limitation, the recitation only limits the scope of the claim such that the recited materials would be capable of forming an anion exchange membrane (see MPEP 2111.01 I & II). Similarly, the language “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”, is language that described the stated purpose or the intended use of the active monomer. An active monomer having the claimed structure and that is capable of being substituted with a cation group to functionalize a polymer that could be formed from the mixture as claimed, reads upon the scope of the claimed invention. Since Hwa discloses the same materials as claimed. These same materials would be capable of “forming an anion exchange membrane comprising a polymer network” and the corresponding active monomer is “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”.
As to claim 2, the claim does not require the presence of a cation group. The active monomer must merely be capable of being substituted with the recited cation group. Hwa discloses an active monomer as claimed and disclosed (e.g. 3-chloro-2-hydroxy-propyl methacrylate), which reads upon the active monomer set forth in claim 1 and 3-6. This active monomer is configured to/capable of being substituted as claimed.
As to claim 9, the combination teaches and discloses the mixture set forth above. Hwa does not explicitly teach the concentration of the active monomer and oligomer/diacrylate are within the claimed range. However, Hwa teaches that varying the amount of the crosslinking agent/oligomer/diacrylate used in the preparation of the copolymer can be determined to vary/optimize the physical properties of the product and only generally suggest an upper limit of 40% based on a molar basis (col. 3, lines 10-20). As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious at the time of the claimed invention to have optimized/determined an appropriate concentration of both the monomer and the oligomer in order to produce a resin having desired physical properties. The amount/concentration of the ingredients is disclosed in Hwa as effecting the results of the formed product and would have accordingly been optimized as a routine expedient.
As to claim 23, the combination suggests inclusion of photoabsorbers as set forth above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have selected the amount of photoabsorber as a routine expedient, in order to facilitate light absorption, and the desired properties. Further, Poelma suggest amounts of UV absorbers/photoabsorbers to be utilized that overlap the claimed range (paragraph [0075]). It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Hwa and Poelma and to have utilized the amount of UV absorber/photoabsorber as claimed in the mixture of Hwa, as suggested by Poelma, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of achieving a desired degree of UV absorbing capability
As to claim 24, the combination teaches and suggests the same claimed and disclosed mixture. It follows that this mixture is configured to/capable of forming a self-supporting structure using a stereolithography technique. The same materials can be processed in the same manner.
As to claim 25, Hwa exemplifies an amount of benzoyl peroxide within the claimed range (e.g. 15 parts out of 4517 parts = 0.33 wt. % in the Examples). Further, Hwa discloses a range of applicable amounts of initiator (col. 3, lines 48-51).
As to claims 32 and 33, the combination teaches and suggests the same claimed and disclosed mixture. It follows from a technical and rational basis that the same mixture will have the same properties.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwa (US 2,862,892), in view of any one of Kamada et al. (US 2018/0044491), Li et al. (US 2016/0207796), or Matsuoka et al. (US 2004/0137297), and further in view of Poelma (US 2023/0129561), and either one of Gacek et al. (US 2020/0307072) or Kraft et al. (US 2020/0238247), as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 23-25, 32 and 33 above, and further in view of any one of Macedo et al. (US 2022/0397544), Blomstrom et al. (US 2020/0188187), or Vepsalainen et al. (US 2020/0088670).
As to claim 8, the combination discloses the mixture as set forth above and discloses suitable crosslinking agents/oligomers/dimethacrylates, but does not disclose diurethane dimethacrylate. However, each of Macedo et al. (paragraph [0059] – ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and diurethane dimethacrylate analogously utilized as equivalent or alternative crosslinking agents), Blomstrom et al. (paragraph [0083]), and Vepsalainen et al. (paragraphs [0074]-[0079]) disclose analogous compositions wherein diurethane dimethacrylate is utilized as the crosslinking agent.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Hwa and any one of the secondary references and to have utilized diurethane dimethacrylate as the crosslinking agent in the mixture of Hwa, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing a known equivalent and/or alternative crosslinking agent effective for producing the copolymer (see MPEP 2144.06 II and MPEP 2144.07; also see MPEP 2143 Rationale (B); e.g. replace the ethylene glycol dimethacrylate or other crosslinking agents of Hwa with the diurethane dimethacrylate crosslinking agents of the secondary references).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 23-25, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0259392) in view of any one of Kamada et al. (US 2018/0044491), Li et al. (US 2016/0207796), or Matsuoka et al. (US 2004/0137297), and further in view of Poelma (US 2023/0129561).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, and 8, Sun et al. teach a mixture capable of/for forming an anion exchange membrane (Abstract) comprising a rigid oligomer having less than 6 repeat units and greater than two polar substituents (paragraph [0029] – diurethane dimethacrylate as well as other di(meth)acrylates); an active monomer comprising an acrylate group comprising a cation group or a halide functional group configured to be substituted with a cation group (paragraph [0026] – acryloyloxyethyltrimethyl ammonium chloride; claim 3 – disclosing a cation group and chloride) and a photoinitiator for initiating polymerization (Abstract; paragraph [0024] and [0045]). Sun et al. do not exemplify utilizing the acryloyloxyethyltrimethyl ammonium chloride with one of the oligomers as set forth in paragraph [0029]). However, the vast majority of materials set forth in paragraph [0029] read upon the claimed rigid oligomer and the suggestion in Sun et al. is to utilize materials from the disclosed groups to produce the membrane (paragraphs [0024], [0026] and [0029]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it prima facie obvious to have utilized specifically disclosed materials that are specifically suggested for combination in the prior art in order to produce a desired anion exchange resin with a reasonable expectation of success.
Sun et al. do not explicitly teach a photoabsorber capable of/for reducing light penetration into the mixture. However, each of Kamada et al. (paragraphs [0083] and [0094], disclosing that it is conventional in the art to add materials like UV absorbers and titanium dioxide to the composition), Li et al. (Abstract; paragraph [0020]; Figures 1 and 4 – showing the inclusion of titanium dioxide in an analogous composition), or Matsuoka et al. (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0020], [0043] – showing the inclusion of titanium dioxide in an analogous composition). Further, Poelma (paragraph [0075]; discloses titanium dioxide is a photoabsorber and discloses suitable amounts for use).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sun et al. and any one of Kamada et al., Li et al., and Matsuoka et al. and Poelma and to have utilized a photoabsorber (e.g. UV absorber, titanium dioxide) in the mixture of Sun et al., a suggested by the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving the properties of the finally produced resin/membrane
The recitation “for forming an anion exchange membrane comprising a polymer network” in the preamble is a statement of purpose or intended use and is not considered to be a limitation in the claims (see MPEP 2111.02 I & II). To the extent the recitation could be understood to be a limitation, the recitation only limits the scope of the claim such that the recited materials would be capable of forming an anion exchange membrane (see MPEP 2111.01 I & II). Similarly, the language “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”, is language that described the stated purpose or the intended use of the active monomer. An active monomer having the claimed structure and that is capable of being substituted with a cation group to functionalize a polymer that could be formed from the mixture as claimed, reads upon the scope of the claimed invention. Since the combination discloses and suggests the same materials as claimed. These same materials would be capable of “forming an anion exchange membrane comprising a polymer network” and the corresponding active monomer is “configured to be substituted with a cation group for functionalizing the polymer network for ion transport”.
As to claim 9, Sun et al. teach and disclose the mixture set forth above. Further, Sun et al. suggest amounts/concentrations (paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0031], [0039]) such that the selected amounts of materials impact the properties of the produced membrane. As such, the amount of these materials would be optimized/readily determined to achieve a desired performance of the membrane.
As to claims 21 and 25, Sun et al. suggest a photoinitiator and suggest choosing a suitable amount to achieve a desired result (Abstract; paragraph [0045]). Selecting an appropriate amount of the photoinitiator would have been readily determined to achieve the desired result as set forth by Sun et al.
As to claim 23, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have determined the amount of photoabsorber required, as a routine expedient, in order to facilitate light absorption and achieve desired properties. Further, Poelma suggest amounts of UV absorbers/photoabsorbers to be utilized that overlap the claimed range (paragraph [0075]. It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sun et al. and Poelma and to have utilized the amount of UV absorber/photoabsorber as claimed in the mixture of Sun et al., as suggested by Poelma, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of achieving a desired degree of UV absorbing capability
As to claim 24, Sun et al. suggest the same claimed mixture. This mixture is configured to/capable of forming a self-supporting structure using a stereolithography technique. The same materials can be processed in the same manner.
As to claims 32 and 33, the combination set forth above discloses and suggests the same claimed and disclosed mixture. It follows from a technical and rational basis that the same mixture will have the same properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered. In view of the amendment to the claims, the previous section 112 rejections have been overcome.
Regarding the Kadobayashi et al. reference, applicant argues that the relied upon materials from paragraphs [0061], [0065] and [0069] don’t reasonably read on both the claimed photoinitiator and photoabsorber. This argument is persuasive. These citations are sufficient to teach the claimed photoinitiator, but are not sufficient to teach the claimed photoabsorber in combination with the photoinitiator. However, Kadobayashi et al. disclose other materials utilized in the composition that are photoabsorbers capable of reducing light penetration into the mixture as claimed. Paragraphs [0023] and [0070] disclose titanium oxide and titanium white, respectively, as well as other recited materials, that are photoabsorbers, as evidenced by Her et al. (paragraphs [0150]-[0152]; titanium oxide is a light absorber) and van Doorn et al. (col. 6, lines 22-31; titanium white is a light absorber) in the rejection above. Further, Kadobayashi et al. disclose a UV absorber for the composition at paragraph [0074], which, as a material that absorbs ultraviolet light, is a photoabsorber. Poelma (paragraph [0075]) provides additional evidence regarding titanium dioxide and benzophenones as photoabsorbers. As such, the composition disclosed by Kadobayashi et al. has multiple materials that read upon the claimed “photoabsorber”. It is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the teaching of Kadobayashi et al.
As to Sun et al., applicant argues that the reference is silent regarding a photoabsorber and that a photoabsorber is not required in the composition of Sun et al. It is agreed that Sun et al. is silent regarding a photoabsorber. However, as set forth above, a new ground of rejection has been made based on Sun et al. in combination with secondary references.
As to Hwa, applicant argues Hwa does not teach a photoabsorber. This argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth above.
It is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kingsbury et al. (US 2022/0213281; Figure 1; paragraphs [0052], [0058], [0060], [0065], [0120]) disclose an analogous composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742