Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/335,216

HOLLOW FIBER MEMBRANE MATERIAL FOR HIGH-HUMIDIFICATION HYDROGEN FUEL CELL HUMIDIFIER AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Examiner
BROOKS, KREGG T
Art Unit
1764
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
58%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
395 granted / 701 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
773
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 701 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 February 2026. Claim Objections Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9 of claim 1 (from which claims 2-6 depend), the word “and” prior to “the external coagulant” is superfluous. in line 3 of claims 2 and 4-6, “followings” should be “following”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-6 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, line 4, it is unclear on what “performing vacuumizing” is performed on. In claim 1, line 7, “the crude product” is unclear as to whether it refers to the crude hollow fiber product. In claim 1, paragraph beginning “S1”, “diphenol” is generally understood. However, based on the specification and structure of the resin, it appears that at least two diphenol compounds (one sulfonated, the other not sulfonated) are used to make the recited resin. It is unclear whether this term refers to one or the other, or both. This ground also applies to the recitation of diphenol in claim 5. In claim 1, paragraph beginning S2, it is unclear to what 2,6-difluorobenzonitirle is added, or on what performing heating reflux is performed. In claim 1, paragraph beginning “S3,” it is unclear what “a system” refers to, or what water is separating from. In claim 1, paragraph beginning “S4,” it is unclear what “a viscosity” refers to. In addition, “the reaction” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what water is being separated from. In claim 1, paragraph beginning “S5,” it is unclear what “a product” refers to. In claim 1, paragraph beginning “mixing,” it is unclear what “a mixture” refers to in to different instances, and the term “a resultant”. In claim 1, last paragraph, “mixing a silane coupling agent with the ethanol aqueous solution for stirring and heating” and “to obtain a coupling agent solution” is unclear because the ethanol aqueous solution has already been recited as being a part of the nano-solution. It is unclear whether this coupling agent is added to the nano-solution in this step or to a separate ethanol aqueous solution. In each of these instances, it is recommended to clearly link each of these terms with other steps. In claims 2 and 3, “the solvent” is unclear because independent claim 1 recites two different solvents. It is unclear to which this term refers to. In claim 4, “a temperature of dissolution” is unclear because there are two dissolving steps recited in independent claim 1. In claim 4, “time for still standing” is unclear because no actual step for still standing is recited in claim 1 (only a solvent “for” still standing), and claim 4 does not recited what is subject to still standing. In claim 4, “temperature of washing” is unclear because two washing steps are recited in independent claim 1. In claim 4, “water boiling is performed” because water is recited implicitly or explicitly multiple times in claim 1, and it is unclear what water this boiling is required for. In claim 5, the recitation of “the toluene” in relation to “the organic mixed solvent” lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1 mentions toluene, it is in the context of releasing toluene, and it is unclear whether that toluene results from the organic mixed solvent. In claim 6, the listing of silane coupling agents appears to be a listing of trade names. If a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 112(b). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name. See MPEP 2173.05(u). In claim 6, “time for stirring and heating” is unclear because claim 1 does not recite a step of “stirring and heating” (only a solution “for” stirring and heating). Therefore, it is unclear what “stirring and heating’ in claim 6 applies to. In claim 6, the phrase “the aqueous hydrochloric acid solution” lacks antecedent basis, because claim 1 only refers to aqueous hydrochloric acid solution in relation to a coagulation bath. In claim 6, “the reaction” lacks antecedent basis because claim 1 does not actually recite a reaction step (only a solution “for” reaction). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the sulfonated polyarylene ether nitrile resin of claim 1 is known in the art, see e.g., US 2005/0159562, para. 0089, the prior art does not provide rationale to arrive at the method for the production of such a resin and preparation of hollow fiber membrane material with modified nanofiller as recited by claim 1. In amending the claims, the Office recommends that applicant make clear what materials or composition each method step is being applied to. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm. 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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. /KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600832
FIBROUS MATERIAL IMPREGNATED WITH REACTIVE THERMOPLASTIC PREPOLYMER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590187
POLYMER COMPOSITE CAPABLE OF BEING QUICKLY DISSOLVED OR DISPERSED IN AQUEOUS SOLVENT AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590207
EPOXY COMPOSITION COMPRISING A BIO-BASED EPOXY COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570778
ETHYLENE INTERPOLYMERS CATALYZED USING MIXED HOMOGENEOUS CATALYST FORMULATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565031
STAINABLE MELAMINE LAMINATE PRODUCTS, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
58%
With Interview (+2.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 701 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month