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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (i.e., claims 10-23) in the reply filed on July 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
ABSTRACT OBJECTION
Abstract is objected since it must be in a single paragraph.
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 10, 12-13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6048007 B2 (Dec. 21, 2016) with Machine translation.
Machine translated JP teaches a block copolymer comprising a segment containing an ionic group (A1) and a segment not containing an ionic group (A2) at top of page 3. JP teaches a segment containing an ionic group (A1) comprising an aromatic polyether block (formula 1) at page 1.
Machine translated JP teaches a segment not containing an ionic group (G3, oligomer a1) having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 10530 and a segment containing an ionic group (G4, oligomer a2) having a number average moeular weight (Mn) of 16000 in the upper portion of page 25.
Machine translated JP teaches a block copolymer b1 comprising the oligomers a1 and a2 having a weight average molecular weight of 280,000 with a molecular weight distribution of 2.1 in the middle of page 25. The molecular weight distribution is Mw/Mn and thus the block copolymer b1 would have a Mn of about 133,333 (i.e., 280,000/2.1). Thus, 133,333 / (10530+16000) = 5.025.
Other examples at pages 26- further teaches a segment containing an ionic group having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 21,000 and 33,000 at pages 26 and 27.
The instant invention further recites that a segment containing an ionic group has a Mn of more than 50,000 and less than 150,000 over JP.
Machine translated JP teaches that the Mn of a segment not containing an ionic group and a segment containing an ionic group is from 5,000 to 50,000 in a third full paragraph from bottom of page 42 (50,000 to 50,000 recited in the third full paragraph of page 42 would be a mistranslation of 5,000 to 50,000 as evidenced by claim 5 at page 4 of JP.
Machine translated JP teaches that a Mw of the block copolymer has 10,000 to 1,000,000 with Mw/Mn of 4.0 or less in a third full paragraph of page 42 see claim 6 of page 4 of JP). Thus, a Mn of the block copolymer would be 2,500 to 250,000 when Mw/Mn is 4) and about 10,000 to about 1,000,000 when Mw/Mn is 1. All examples 1-16 taught in pages 25-39 of Machine translated JP teach a Mn of a segment containing an ionic group is higher than that of a segment not containing an ionic group with a Mw/Mn of 2.1 to 2.5. Thus, utilization of a segment containing an ionic group having a Mn of 5.000 would make the recited “Mn3 /(Mn1 + Mn2) > 1” of claim 10 obvious.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize a segment containing an ionic group having Mn of 50,000 in JP since JP teaches a Mn of up to 50,000 absent showing otherwise.
The recited “Mn of more than 5,000” is very close to “up to Mn of 50,000” taught by JP and thus a block copolymer comprising a segment containing an ionic group having Mn of 50,000 would be expected to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed, Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, formula 1 taught in claim 1 and formulae taught in [0060] of JP are aromatic polyether polymers.
Regarding claim 13, Machine translated JP teaches a linker moiety in lines 8 of page 15.
Regarding claim 15, JP teaches formula 1 having a structure (S1) at page 1 with definitions for Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3a for the structure (S1) at page 41 of Machine translation in which an aromatic group for Ar1 and Ar2 and arylcarbonyl group for Ar3a are taught. Such definitions for the formula 1 having a structure (S1) would make claim 15 obvious.
Regarding claim 16, JP teaches formula (T1) at page 22 and Machine translated JP teaches that A of the formula (T1) is dihydric phenol in a fifth full paragraph of page 10. Machine translated JP further teaches 4(chlorophenyl) ketone in lines 6-7 of page 10 and thus utilization of the 4(chlorophenyl) ketone as “A” of the formula (T1) would make claim 16 obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Machine translated JP teaches that a segment not containing an ionic group is formulae (S4) to (S6) at bottom of page 4 and JP teaches that the segment comprises an aromatic polyether polymer at top of page 25.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, JP teaches formula 14 having a structure of (S7) at page 25 and choosing (B6) at top of page 26 as D of the (S7) would make claims 18 and 19 obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Machine translated JP teaches the recited structure in a second and a third full paragraphs from bottom of page 4.
Regarding claims 21-23, Machine translated JP teaches a polymer electrolyte material, polymer electrolyte molded body and solid polymer type fuel cell as a Title. Machine translated JP further teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane in line 2 of page 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6048007 B2 (Dec. 21, 2016) with Machine translation as applied to claims 10, 12-13 and 15-23 above, and further in view of Umeda et al. (US2014/0322628 A1).
The instant claim 11 further recites a heat of crystalline of the block copolymer over JP.
A polymer electrolyte membrane utilization of a block copolymer comprising a segment containing an ionic and a segment not containing an ionic group is well known in the art.
Umeda et al. teach the polymer electrolyte membrane comprising the instant block copolymer comprising a segment containing an ionic and a segment not containing an ionic group in claims. Umeda et al. teach that such block copolymer has the recited degree of crystallinity of 0.5% or larger determined by the wide-angle X-ray diffractometry in abstract. Umeda et al. teach that such polymer electrolyte membrane would provide excellent properties in [0019].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize a block copolymer having the recited degree of crystallinity of 0.5% or larger determined by the wide-angle X-ray diffractometry taught by Umeda in JP since Umeda teach that such block copolymer has the recited degree of crystallinity of 0.5% or larger determined by the wide-angle X-ray diffractometry would provide excellent properties absent showing otherwise.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6048007 B2 (Dec. 21, 2016) with Machine translation as applied to claims 10, 12-13 and 15-23 above, and further in view of WO 2013140865 A1 (Sep. 26, 2013) with Machine translation.
All examples of JP show Mn1 / Mn2 being less than 2.
Regarding claim 14, Machine translated WO teaches a block copolymer comprising a segment containing an ionic group and a segment not containing an ionic group in abstract in which a ratio of Mn of a segment containing an ionic group (i.e., hydrophilic segment) and Mn of a segment not containing an ionic group (i.e., hydrophobic segment) being 2.0-5.0 is further taught. Machine translated WO further teaches that such block copolymer yields high ion conductivity and low methanol permeability in the abstract and the lower part of page 10 (see table 1 of [0061] of JP.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain a block copolymer of JP having the instantly recited ratio of Mn1 and Mn2 taught by WO since WO teaches such block copolymer yields high ion conductivity and low methanol permeability absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights