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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14, 22, 36-40, and 52 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner confirms that, whereas group (II) was said to be comprised of claim 35, it was intended, as Applicant surmised, that claim 27 be named instead.
Claims 27 and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected polymers, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13, 14, and 22, each define a variable “m” and “Q” well before they are actually depicted in a formula. In all cases, the definitions of these should be moved below formula (9A-1). Likewise, in claim 52, the definitions of Q, n3, n4, and n5 should appear after the definition of R59.
In claim 6, the word “or” should appear before formula (4Aorg-3) or after formula (4Aorg-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 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.
There is no antecedent basis in claim 1 for the recitation of structural units of formulae 1A and 2A in claim 2. Further, the final 6 lines of claim 2 appear to be in conflict insofar as they define different mol ratio of units (1Aorg)/(2Aorg) to units (3A), (4Aorg) and (5Aorg) and are indicated as being alternative conditions.
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)(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, 6, 9, 11, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan et al., WO 2020/198627.
The applied reference has common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
The reference teaches as a first embodiment of the prior art invention copolymers containing both units (1A) and (3A). See [0038] and [0048]. Relevant to the present discussion, [0038] defines R11 as being encompassing of nitrogen heterocycles such as those outlined in [0045]. At least some of the nitrogen heterocycles identified in [0045], e.g. pyrazolidine and imidazolidine, feature a plurality of nitrogen atoms bonded to hydrogen atoms. Others, such as imidazole, contain two nitrogen atoms of which at least one is/may be bonded to a hydrogen atom if the imidazole is joined to the remainder of the structure via an atom other than the hydrogen-bearing nitrogen atom (thus satisfying the requirement attached to variable R2).
Claim 6 is rejected because it is further limiting of an aspect of claim 1 that did not represent the Examiner’s foundation for rejection. That is to say, the rejection is based on the reference having taught copolymers with units equivalent to (2A) and (3A) whereas claims 6 and 11 place further limits on the moieties that conform with formula (4Aorg) but does not actually require units (4Aorg) to be present.
As for claims 38-40, the reaction of the copolymers with a hydroxide-, carbonate-, or bicarbonate compound is contemplated in [0017,01053]. Paragraph [00106] mentions the carbonate and hydroxide salts of potassium among the compounds that are reacted with the copolymer(s).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al., WO 2020/198627.
The broader disclosure does not appear to directly address suitable ratios of the trifluoro ketone compound to bi/triphenylene compound but the Examples- take Example 3 for instance- suggest that the ratio of the former to the latter may be within the range of 1-100:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 22, and 52 are allowable over the prior art. Claims 5, 8, 10, 13, and 36-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art is replete with disclosures of copolymers for anion exchange membranes that contain some combination of units including (3A) and one or more of (6A), (7A), (9A-1), etc. but are not anticipatory of any of the instant claims. See, for instance the article entitled “Poly(arylene alkylene)s with Pendant N-spirocyclic Quanternary Ammonium Cations for Anion Exchange Membranes, authored by Pham et al. and published in the Journal of Materials Chemistry A (2018) 6, 16537-16547, the article entitled “High Ion Conductivity and Diffusivity in the Anion Exchange Membrane enabled by Tethering with Multication Strings on the Poly(biphenyl alkylene) Backbone” authored by Li et al. and published in ACS Applied Energy Materials (2020) 3 (7), 6268-6279, WO 2019/068051, and US 2022/0119641.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
June 25, 2026
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights