DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the application and claim set filed July 22, 2023, and the Response to Restriction Requirement filed February 23, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Non-elected claims 13-20 are WITHDRAWN.
Elected claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 are REJECTED under 35 USC 112, but otherwise contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 2 is OBJECTED TO as depending from a rejected claim, but contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 is ALLOWED.
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 with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant also elected the polyaramid as the species.
Applicant made no argument regarding the restriction between Inventions I and II. As such, the requirement as to the restriction is made FINAL.
Applicant’s argument regarding the similarity of the identified species was not persuasive. However, the examiner has determined that the claims 1-12 contain allowable subject matter, notwithstanding the species election. Thus, the requirement for species election is WITHDRAWN.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, (I) is a functionalized polyaramid. It is not clear if (I) is intended to be exemplar, or if the structure of (I) is intended to be structural representation of the polymeric/backbone, as claimed. If the latter, it is not clear how (I) can represent a polyamide or polyimide backbone. In addition, it is not clear if (I) is intended to represent a polyaramid as claimed, or is intended to be merely an exemplar structure, as polyaramids may have different structures with different phenyl attachment points (o, m, or p), as well as different numbers of phenyl groups between the carboxamide groups.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 1 and do not correct claim 1’s deficiencies. Thus, they are also indefinite.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it is not clear if the functional side groups are in the appropriate place. In claim 1, the functional side groups are on the phenyl rings, whereas in claim 3, they are attached to the carboxamide nitrogen. The examiner invites Applicant to clarify.
Regarding claims 7-12, the structures show the polyaramid separator membrane, which presumably includes both M and A groups. However, the structures show only M groups OR A groups. Thus, it is unclear whether the structures of the present claims are intended to represent the membrane, or something else.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed. Claim 2 is 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. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present claims contain allowable subject matter in view of the closest prior art reference, Sun et al. (US 11,205,821). Sun teaches a polyaramid separator membrane, but does not teach or fairly suggest that the polyaramid is functionalized. Further, after a thorough and complete search, the examiner cannot find prior art teaching or fairly suggesting separator membranes comprising either a polyamide or polyimide as the backbone, functionalized or not.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S BRANCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
CATHERINE S. BRANCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights