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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, it is suggested to amend “ a process for the production of a” to - -a process for producing- -.
In claim 1, line 1, it is suggested to amend “comprising” to - -comprising: - -
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said process”. It is suggested to amend the word “said” to - -the- -. It is recommended that once an element is given antecedent basis, it is then referred to as “the [element]”.
In claim 4, line 2, it is suggested to amend “or perfluorinated” to - -or a perfluorinated- -.
In claim 5, line 2, it is suggested to amend “is perfluorosulfonic” to - -is a perfluorosulfonic- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 9-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0167100 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Moore teaches a process for the production of a reinforced ion-conducting membrane (i.e., method of making a composite membrane with ion exchange properties) (paragraph [0007], [0017]) comprising:
a planar reinforcing component which comprises a porous polymer material (i.e., compatibilized porous base membrane) (paragraph [0008], [0043]);
an ion-conducting component embedded in at least a region of the planar reinforcing component (i.e., ion exchange material impregnating the compatibilized porous base membrane) (paragraph [0008], [0019]-[0020]), which ion-conducting component comprises an ion-conducting polymer material (paragraph [0019]-[0020]); and
linking groups derived from a coupling agent (i.e., primer) (paragraph [0008], [0053]), in which the linking groups are covalently or ionically bonded to the planar reinforcing component (i.e., mechanically binds the primer to the base membrane) (paragraph [0062]);
said process comprising the steps of:
reacting the planar reinforcing component with the coupling agent to form a modified reinforcing component (i.e., the porous base membrane is compatibilized by coating the primer to external and internal surfaces of the porous base membrane and crosslinking the primer) (paragraph [0009], [0048]) in which the linking groups are covalently or ionically bonded to the planar reinforcing component (i.e., mechanically binds the primer to the base membrane) (paragraph [0062])
impregnating at least a region of the modified reinforcing component with the ion- conducting component (i.e., impregnating the compatibilized porous base membrane with an ion exchange material) (paragraph [0009], [0087]); and
drying the impregnated modified reinforcing component (i.e., the composite membrane is heated to dry) (paragraph [0087]).
Moore does not explicitly recite the limitations “wherein the linking groups are chemically bonded to the ion-conducting component via covalent bonds or via ionic bonds…thereby covalently or ionically bonding the linking groups to the ion-conducting component”
However, Moore teaches the linking groups (i.e., primer) is crosslinked and serves to compatibilize the planar reinforcing component (i.e., porous base membrane) by stabilizing the interface between the hydrophobic planar reinforcing component (i.e., porous base membrane) and the hydrophilic ion-conducting component (i.e., ion exchange material) (paragraph [0048]). Compatibilization suggests chemical interaction between the two surfaces. As articulated above, Moore teaches the planar reinforcing component (i.e., porous base membrane) is compatibilized with the ion-conducting component (i.e., ion exchange material) by using linking groups (i.e., primer) (paragraph [0048]). Furthermore, Moore teaches the primer improves interfacial consistency between the planar reinforcing component (i.e., porous base membrane) and the ion-conducting component (i.e., ion exchange material) and reduces the defects such as voids (paragraph [0048]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such improvements are achieved by chemical interactions, including covalent and/or ionic bonds, rather than mere physical contact. Also, primers/coupling agents are well known in the art of polymers to form interfacial bridges between dissimilar materials (such as the planar reinforcing component and ion-conducting component) and to be used to chemically bond different phases through covalent or ionic interactions or improve bonding capabilities1. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the primer in Moore is chemically bonded to both the planar reinforcing component and the ion-conducting component via covalent or ionic bond. Moreover, Moore teaches the composite membrane is heated to dry, which causes the ion-conducting component (i.e., ion exchange material) to securely adheres to the linking groups (i.e., primer) (paragraph [0087]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret this as involving chemical bonding rather than mere physical contact as “securely adheres” after heating strongly suggests that formation of interfacial interaction occurs including covalent bonding or ionic interactions. Since Moore ties adhesion directly to heating, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that heating would activate reactive functional groups in the linking groups (i.e., primer), drives crosslinking reactions or promote ionic associations. Heating is well known to promote curing reactions, crosslinking, and chemical bonding between reactive functional groups present in primers and adjacent materials. In view of the teachings of Moore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the linking groups derived from a coupling agent (i.e., primer) forms covalent and/or ionic bonds with the ion conducting component (i.e., ion exchange material) during or after impregnation and drying.
Regarding claims 2-3, Moore teaches the porous polymer material is ePTFE (paragraph [0043]),
Regarding claims 4-5, Moore teaches the ion-conducting polymer is a PFSA polymer (i.e., NAFION®) (paragraph [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Moore teaches step (i) is carried out by exposing the planar reinforcing component to a plasma discharge in the presence of the coupling agent (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Moore teaches the coupling agent (i.e., primer) comprises a nitrogen containing moiety and includes amine compounds (i.e., PEI, PVP) (paragraph [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claims 12-14, Moore teaches the membrane is heated to heating temperatures ranging from 60-300°C and drying/heating steps can be repeated as desire which obviate the claimed heating steps. It is noted that Moore differ in the exact same temperature ranges as recited in the instant claims however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the temperature range of Moore overlaps the instant claimed ranges and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0167100 – cited in IDS) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Laramie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0010804).
Regarding claims 7-8, Moore teaches the process as described above in claim 1 and 6 including exposing the planar reinforcing component to a plasma discharge in the presence of the coupling agent.
Moore does not teach the specifics of the precursor plasma gas being hydrogen.
Laramie, related to a membrane for batteries (paragraph [0002]), teaches plasma treatments is known to be performed in the presence of various gases including hydrogen and such promote adhesion between surfaces (paragraph 0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the process of Moore where plasma discharge is performed in the presence of hydrogen in order to promote adhesion between the planar reinforcing component and the coupling agent, as suggested by Laramie.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0167100 – cited in IDS) as applied to claims 1 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Fukuchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0070086).
Regarding claim 11, Moore teaches the process as described above in claim 1 and 9-10 including the coupling agent (i.e., primer) comprises a nitrogen containing moiety and includes amine compounds (i.e., PEI, PVP) (paragraph [0059]-[0060]).
Moore does not teach the coupling agent is selected from ammonia, allyl amine, trimethoxyaminopropyl silane and dihydroimidazole silane or mixtures thereof.
Fukuchi, also directed to a polymer membrane (paragraph [0001]), teaches in the process of forming the polymer membrane, coupling agents are used for crosslinking or as polymerization initiators and chain transfer agents (paragraph [0062], [0124]) (same as Moore) and such can include trimethoxyaminopropyl silane (paragraph [0124]-[0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider using trimethoxyaminopropyl silane as a coupling agent for crosslinking and predictably improve compatibility between the primer and the porous polymer material.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sharman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0321988). Sharman teaches a membrane comprising a planar reinforcement component comprising a porous polymer materials such as ePTFE (paragraph [0024], [0029]) and an ion-conducting material (paragraph [0025]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
1 https://jobs.marylandnonprofits.org/career/adhesive-primer#:~:text=An%20adhesive%20primer%20serves%20as,the%20assembled%20components%20or%20structures.