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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-17, 21 and 22 in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. (US Patent Application No. 2016/0260988).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazawa et al. teach a composite membrane (page 1, paragraph [0010]) comprising a freestanding, microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) and a hydrophilic filler (page 3, paragraph [0051], page 4, paragraph [0062]), the microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) having a porosity of 30% or more which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 40-75% that extends from a first major surface to a second major surface (page 5, paragraph [0065], page 6, paragraph [0088]), wherein the hydrophilic filler is distributed throughout the substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051], page 4, paragraphs [0061], [0062]), and wherein at least one of the first and second major surfaces comprises a non-porous coating of an ion-selective polymer (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 6, paragraphs [0090], [0091]), wherein the coating is crosslinked (page 9, paragraphs [0117], [0118]).
Miyazawa et al. do not disclose wherein a volume fraction of hydrophilic filler divided by a volume fraction of polyolefin is greater than 0.75 thereby making the substrate wettable. However, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the hydrophilic filler is present in the microporous membrane in the amount of 10% by mass or more (page 4, paragraphs [0062], [0063]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in volume fraction involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the volume fraction of hydrophilic filler in Miyazawa et al. in order to provide adequate smoothness and mechanical strength (Miyazawa et al., page 4, paragraphs [0062], [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein both major surfaces are coated with the ion-selective polymer (page 11, paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the ion-selective polymer is selective for either anions or cations (page 6, paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyazawa et al. do not disclose wherein a diffusion rate of cations through the composite membrane is less than 0.1 mol/hr/m2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in diffusion rate involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the diffusion rate of cations through the composite membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide good ion permselectivity (Miyazawa et al., page 9, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazawa et al. do not teach wherein an electrical resistivity of the composite membrane is less than 250 Ω-cm. However, Miyazawa et al. do teach wherein an electrical resistance of the microporous membrane is 0.2 Ω·cm2/sheet (page 5, paragraph [0075]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in electrical resistance involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the electrical resistance of the composite membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide an improvement of the performance of the separation membrane (Miyazawa et al., page 5, paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the microporous polyolefin substrate further comprises a surfactant (page 6, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) has a thickness of 50 µm or more which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 100 microns to 350 microns (page 5, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) has a thickness of 50 µm or more (page 5, paragraph [0076]) and the separation membrane including the sum of thickness of the microporous substrate and ion exchange coating has a thickness of 50 µm or more (page 12, paragraph [0154]).
Miyazawa et al. do not disclose wherein the coating of the ion-selective polymer has a thickness of 1 micron to 25 microns, or 1 micron to 10 microns. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the coating of ion selective polymer of Miyazawa et al. in order to suppress the impregnation of metal ions as an active material and provide mechanical strength (Miyazawa et al., page 12, paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 15, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) comprises ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (page 4, paragraph [0055]) and provides extended mechanical strength to the composite membrane (page 4, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 16, Miyazawa et al. teach a flow battery (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011]) comprising a composite membrane (page 1, paragraph [0010]) comprising a freestanding, microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) and a hydrophilic filler (page 3, paragraph [0051], page 4, paragraph [0062]), the microporous polyolefin substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051]) having a porosity of 30% or more which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 40-75% that extends from a first major surface to a second major surface (page 5, paragraph [0065], page 6, paragraph [0088]), wherein the hydrophilic filler is distributed throughout the substrate (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 3, paragraph [0051], page 4, paragraphs [0061], [0062]), and wherein at least one of the first and second major surfaces comprises a non-porous coating of an ion-selective polymer (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 6, paragraphs [0090], [0091]), wherein the coating is crosslinked (page 9, paragraphs [0117], [0118]).
Miyazawa et al. do not disclose wherein a volume fraction of hydrophilic filler divided by a volume fraction of polyolefin is greater than 0.75 thereby making the substrate wettable. However, Miyazawa et al. teach wherein the hydrophilic filler is present in the microporous membrane in the amount of 10% by mass or more (page 4, paragraphs [0062], [0063]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in volume fraction involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the volume fraction of hydrophilic filler in Miyazawa et al. in order to provide adequate smoothness and mechanical strength (Miyazawa et al., page 4, paragraphs [0062], [0063]).
Regarding claim 21, Miyazawa et al. do not disclose wherein a diffusion rate of cations through the composite membrane is less than 0.1 mol/hr/m2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in diffusion rate involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the diffusion rate of cations through the composite membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide good ion permselectivity (Miyazawa et al., page 9, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 22, Miyazawa et al. do not teach wherein an electrical resistivity of the composite membrane is less than 250 Ω-cm. However, Miyazawa et al. do teach wherein an electrical resistance of the microporous membrane is 0.2 Ω·cm2/sheet (page 5, paragraph [0075]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in electrical resistance involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the electrical resistance of the composite membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide an improvement of the performance of the separation membrane (Miyazawa et al., page 5, paragraph [0075]).
Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. (US Patent Application No. 2016/0260988) in view of Wandera (WO2018/232302).
Miyazawa et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 2, Miyazawa et al. fail to teach wherein at least one surface comprises open pores, readily penetrable by an aqueous electrolyte into the porosity of the substrate. However, Wandera teaches a composite membrane (paragraphs [0002], [0010]) comprising a freestanding, microporous membrane (paragraphs [0010], [0068]), wherein the microporous membrane has interconnecting (open) pores on a first major surface and a second major surface (paragraphs [0002], [0010]) and has electrolyte permeability (readily penetrable by an aqueous electrolyte into the porosity of the membrane) (paragraphs [0010], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the open pores of Wandera in the membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide fluid permeability (Wandera, paragraphs [0002], [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Miyazawa et al. fail to teach wherein the microporous polyolefin substrate comprises less than 3% of a residual process oil. However, Wandera teaches a composite membrane (paragraphs [0002], [0010]) comprising a freestanding, microporous membrane (paragraphs [0010], [0068]), wherein the microporous membrane is made without processing oil (0% processing oil) (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate of Miyazawa et al. without processing oil as that of Wandera in order to prevent negative impact on the performance of the battery (Wandera, paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Miyazawa et al. fail to teach wherein at least one surface comprises open pores, readily penetrable by an aqueous electrolyte into the porosity of the substrate. However, Wandera teaches a composite membrane (paragraphs [0002], [0010]) comprising a freestanding, microporous membrane (paragraphs [0010], [0068]), wherein the microporous membrane has interconnecting (open) pores on a first major surface and a second major surface (paragraphs [0002], [0010]) and has electrolyte permeability (readily penetrable by an aqueous electrolyte into the porosity of the membrane) (paragraphs [0010], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the open pores of Wandera in the membrane of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide fluid permeability (Wandera, paragraphs [0002], [0010]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. (US Patent Application No. 2016/0260988) in view of Eylem et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0008937).
Miyazawa et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 8, Miyazawa et al. fail to teach wherein the coating of the ion-selective polymer further comprises nanoparticulate fillers. However, Eylem et al. teach a composite membrane (page 12, paragraphs [0094], [0095]) comprising a microporous membrane (page 12, paragraph [0095]) and an ion trapping layer (page 12, paragraph [0096]) comprising nanoparticles (page 12, paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanoparticles of Eylem et al. in the coating of ion-selective polymer of Miyazawa et al. in order to form an insoluble compound or an insoluble complex (Eylem et al., page 12, paragraph [0096]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. (US Patent Application No. 2016/0260988) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 101228382, see machine translated version).
Miyazawa et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Miyazawa et al. fail to teach wherein the coating is crosslinked via irradiation, free radicals, or chemical crosslinking. However, Hwang et al. teach a composite membrane (paragraph [0024]) comprising a support (paragraph [0024]) and an ion exchange membrane (paragraphs [0009], [0024]) that is crosslinked via chemical crosslinking with a crosslinking agent (paragraph [0009]), wherein the crosslinking agent comprises a phenolic (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the crosslinking of Hwang et al. in the coating of Miyazawa et al. in order to provide an ion exchange membrane having high durability and excellent mechanical properties (Hwang et al., paragraph [0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 4/9/2026