Polymer Films

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 . POLYMER FILMS Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/282,809 Art Unit: 1727 October 6, 2026 DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed on Jue 02, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-28 are currently pending. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claim 14 in the reply filed on June 02, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of Species 2-1; 3-1; 7-1; 7-n2; 7-p1; 7-Z2; 9-Z3 are acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search burden because ethe groups are interrelated. This is not found persuasive because Although the chemical compounds of Groups I-VII share a common structure of an ionic compound comprising a bis(sulfonyl)imide group, the common structure is not a significant structural element because it represents only a small portion of the compound structures and does not constitute a structurally distinctive portion in view of Gonzalez et al. who teaches of a polymer comprising bis(styrenesulfonyl)imide (Abstract). Further, the compounds of these groups do not belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds because Applicant does not state that they are obvious variants of each other. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 15-28 are withdrawn from consideration. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata et al. (US 2016/0354771 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2023) in view of Gonzalez et al. (US 2016/0168086 A1). As to Claim 14, Inomata discloses an ion-exchange membrane, comprising: a curable composition having a hydrogenated styrene-butadiene triblock copolymer (curable non-ionic compound having vinyl groups) (Abstract and paragraphs [0171 and 0431]). Inomata does not specifically disclose wherein the curable non-ionic compound comprises at least 4 vinyl groups. However, Inomata teaches wherein the molecular weight of the non-ionic compound can be from 1,000 to 1,000,000 (paragraphs [0166-0176]). The styrene-butadiene triblock copolymer of Inomata encompasses the claimed compound for number of vinyl groups. In the alternative, the compound of Inomata is at least very close in structural and will have similar properties. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, see MPEP 2144.09, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the curable non-ionic compound of Inomata to comprise at least four vinyl groups because Inomata teaches that a curable composition that has excellent performances for an ion exchange membrane is provided (paragraph [0015]). Inomata does not specifically disclose wherein the composition comprises a curable ionic compound comprising a bis(sulfonyl)imide group. However, Gonzalez teaches of a composition for forming an ion exchange membrane, comprising a crosslinking monomer comprising bis(styrenesulfonyl)imide (curable ionic compound) that is used to produce an ion conductive copolymer (Abstract). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Inomata to comprise a bis(sulfonyl)imide group because Gonzalez teaches that a membrane with improve security and inflammability properties is provided (Abstract). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata et al. (US 2016/0354771 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2023) in view of Yusuku et al. (JP 2018-043936 A; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes). As to Claim 14, Inomata discloses an ion-exchange membrane, comprising: a curable composition having a hydrogenated styrene-butadiene triblock copolymer (curable non-ionic compound having vinyl groups) (Abstract and paragraphs [0171 and 0431]). Inomata does not specifically disclose wherein the curable non-ionic compound comprises at least 4 vinyl groups. However, Inomata teaches wherein the molecular weight of the non-ionic compound can be from 1,000 to 1,000,000 (paragraphs [0166-0176]). The styrene-butadiene triblock copolymer of Inomata encompasses the claimed compound for number of vinyl groups. In the alternative, the compound of Inomata is at least very close in structural and will have similar properties. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, see MPEP 2144.09, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the curable non-ionic compound of Inomata to comprise at least four vinyl groups because Inomata teaches that a curable composition that has excellent performances for an ion exchange membrane is provided (paragraph [0015]). Inomata does not specifically disclose wherein the composition comprises a curable ionic compound comprising a bis(sulfonyl)imide group. However, Yusuke teaches of a composition for forming an ion exchange membrane, comprising a crosslinking monomer comprising bis-(4-styrenesulfonyl)imide (curable ionic compound) that is used to produce an ion conductive copolymer (Abstract and paragraph [0032]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Inomata to comprise a bis(sulfonyl)imide group because Yusuke teaches that a such a monomer has excellent radical polymerizability, cation exchangeability and high water-solubility (Abstract and paragraph [0032]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727