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 . 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.
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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes multiple sentences and limitations that appear to have been copied and pasted from claim 19. Each claim must end with a period and periods may not be used elsewhere except for abbreviations. See 37 CFR 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). 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 5, 6, and 8-20 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the triblock co-polymer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term is properly introduced in claim 4. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be held to depend from claim 4s.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the SEBS triblock co-polymer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term is properly introduced in claim 5. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be held to depend from claim 5.
Claims 8-20 attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps of that process. Rather, the claims merely recite the structural limitations claimed in parent application number 17/305, 422. Such “use” claims that lack positive steps delimiting how the “use” is actually practiced are indefinite. M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(q).
Claim 17 is wholly nonsensical, as it appears that Applicant included limitations from claim 19. Furthermore, each claim must end with a period and periods may not be used elsewhere in the claim except for abbreviations. see 37 CFR 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps delimiting how the “use” of the redox flow battery is actually practiced. M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(q). Rather, the claims merely recite the structural limitations claimed in parent application number 17/305, 422.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ran (CN 108479436 A) in view of Gao et al., High performance anion exchange ionomer for anion exchange membrane fuel cells, RSC Adv., 2017, 7, 19153, available at https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2017/ra/c7ra01980g, last visited May 20, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Ran discloses an anion exchange membrane (AEM) comprising:
a polymer, in this case a polyphenyl phosphine polymer (p. 5); and
a hydrophobic reinforcement matrix, in this case the hydrophobic alkane chain (p. 5).
Ran does not disclose that the polymer is a block copolymer. However, Gao teaches that a block co-polymer, in this case a triblock copolymer, provides high conductivity and good durability (Abstract) as well as improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Regarding claim 2, Ran does not disclose the block copolymer. However, Gao teaches the block copolymer as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that the copolymer is chloromethylated, in this case chloromethylated poly(styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene) (CMSEBS) (Abstract, § 2.6, p. 19155). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Regarding claim 3, Ran does not disclose the block copolymer. However, Gao teaches the block copolymer as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and further teaches that it may be functionalized with a functionalizing cation, in this case SEBS may be functioned to quaternary ammonium groups (§ 3.2, p. 19156). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Regarding claim 4, Ran does not disclose the block copolymer. However, Gao teaches that a block co-polymer, in this case a triblock copolymer, provides high conductivity and good durability (Abstract) as well as improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Regarding claim 5, Ran does not disclose the block copolymer. However, Gao teaches the tri-block copolymer as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, above, and further teaches that it comprises CMSEBS (Abstract, § 2.6, p. 19155). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Regarding claim 6, Ran does not disclose the block copolymer. However, Gao teaches the tri-block copolymer as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above, and further teaches that it is functionalized with trimethylamine, in this case CMSEBS MEA is immersed in trimethylamine solution for 24 hours (§ 2.6, p. 19155). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the triblock copolymer as the polymer in the AEM would have yielded improved power density (§ 4, p. 19160), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a block copolymer in the AEM in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ran and Gao as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bahar et al. (US 2021/0320315 A1), hereinafter “Bahar.”
Regarding claim 7, neither Ran nor Gao teaches that the hydrophobic reinforcement matrix comprises extended polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE). However, Bahar teaches that including e-PTFE, in this case expanded PTFE, in an anion conducting membrane results in a thinner and more durable membrane (¶ [0007]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including this material would have yielded a AEM of reduced thickness and improved durability (see ¶ [0007]), thereby facilitating improved AEM performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected e-PTFE as the hydrophobic reinforcement matrix in order to have facilitated improved AEM performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights