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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-25 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear what the “casting” step entails, i.e., does it include casting the grafted TPE onto a film?
In claims 2-23, for proper antecedent basis, is the preambular “The method” intended instead of “A method” ?
In claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by the confusing phrase “a statistically controlled radical-grafted” defining the TPE.
In claim 2, does purifying “products” refer to purification of the antecedently-generated grafted TPE?
In claim 2, the text "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 2, there is no express antecedent basis for casting of the “film”.
In claim 2, it is unclear what the “preparing” step entails.
In claim 3, is a styrene-butylene-styrene block copolymer intended?
In claims 4 and 10, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claims 5, 11 and 16, the acronym “SBS” is not defined. Moreover, is a SBS block copolymer intended?
In claim 6, there is no express antecedent basis for “the grafting molecule or monomer”.
In claim 6, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 7, there is no express antecedent basis for “the grafting molecule or monomer” or “the radical grafting”.
In claim 7, the language “suitable for of the” is confusing.
In claims 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, 23 and 24, the acronym “VBC” is not defined.
In claim 8, there is no express antecedent basis for “the grafting molecule”.
In claims 9 and 10, there is no express antecedent basis for “the synthesizing of the radical grafted” TPE.
In claim 10, the acronyms “BPO” and “AIBN” are not defined.
In claim 11, there is no express antecedent basis for “the radical grafted”, “the impure mixture” and “the VBC-grafted SBS”.
In claim 15, there is no express antecedent basis for “the VBC or equivalent” or “the radical-grafted TPE”. Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by “equivalent”. Would this embrace a VBC derivative or an alternative grafting monomer?
In claim 16, there is no express antecedent basis for casting of “the membrane” or “VBC-grafted SBS”.
In claim 17, there is no express antecedent basis for “the polymer” or “amination”.
In claim 18, there is no express antecedent basis for “the amination” or “the cast film”.
In claims 15 and 19, there is no express antecedent basis for “the VBC or equivalent” or a “radical-grafted TPE”.
In claim 19, it is unclear whether the antecedently-selected TPE is used to synthesize the radical nitroxide-grafted TPE.
In claim 19, given the plural “radical nitroxides-grafted TPE”, it is unclear whether more than one of the antecedently-recited nitroxide-grafted TPEs is required.
In claim 19, it is unclear how reacting a radical nitroxides-grafted TPE with VBC engenders an “anion exchange” membrane. That is, no amination step is apparent.
In claim 20, the acronym “TEMPO” is not defined.
In claim 21, the acronym “BPO” is not defined.
In claim 22, it is unclear whether “the reaction” refers to the “synthesis” step or to the “reacting” step.
In claim 24, there is no express antecedent basis for “the nitroxide radical-grafted TPE”.
In claim 24, it is unclear what is meant by the confusing “spacers are added”.
In claim 24, it is unclear which step per claim 1 is being defined. Specifically, it is unclear what is “dissolved” and what forms “the solution”.
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 (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.
(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.
Claims 1-13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by US 2010/0137460 (Bert).
As to claims 1 and 25, Bert discloses the manufacture of an anionic exchange membrane comprising:
(i) grafting a vinyl monomer such as p-chloro-methyl styrene (VBC) onto a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) such as SBS block copolymer (meets Applicants’ grafting step);
(ii) removing undesired materials from the resultant grafted TPE (meets Applicants’ purifying step);
(iii) casting a film of the purified grafted TPE (meets Applicants’ casting step);
(iv) aminating/quaternizing the grafted TPE (meets Applicants’ functionalizing step) (e.g., abstract, [0024-0044], examples, claims).
As to claim 2, Bert necessarily selects a TPE (meets Applicants’ selecting step), carries out the grafting of the vinyl monomer under controlled reaction conditions with a radical initiator [0036-0042] (meets Applicants’ synthesizing step), casts a film (meets Applicants’ casting step), quaternizes the grafted TPE (meets Applicants’ quaternization step) and provides ready to use membranes (meets Applicants’ preparing step).
As to claims 3 and 4, Bert uses an SBS block copolymer in the examples.
As to claim 5, in general SBS block copolymers are known to contain at least 30% styrene.
As to claims 6 and 7, Bert uses VBC in the examples.
As to claim 8, Bert grafts the SBS block copolymer with VBC alone.
As to claims 9 and 10, Bert discloses grafting the vinyl monomer in the presence of a radical initiator (BPO or AIBN) and solvents at a temperature higher than 60°C [0032-0038]/examples.
As to claims 11-13, Bert purifies (multiple times) the grafted TPE in an acetone/methanol mixture (example 1).
As to claim 15, Bert uses 5 moles of VBC (example 1).
As to claim 17, Bert discloses adding a reaction inhibitor prior to amination [0039].
As to claim 18, Bert discloses soaking the cast film in a diamine solution [0043].
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.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0137460 (Bert) described hereinabove.
As to claim 14, Bert is unlimited regarding the acetone/methanol ratio and, as such, implicitly suggests that any ratio (inclusive of that presently claimed) can be successfully used, in the absence of criticality therefor.
As to claim 16, Bert discloses drying the cast film in an oven (darkened conditions) [0043]. It would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to dry under vacuum to optimize the drying step.
Claims 19-24 have not been included in the 35 USC 102/103 rejections over Bert which fails to disclose or render obvious the use of a nitroxide (TEMPO) in the grafting reaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765