DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “block” with “blocks”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “capable of selectively binding” with “that selectively binds”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “block” with “blocks”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “are chemically” with “is chemically”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “are incorporated” with “is incorporated”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “are crosslinked” with “is crosslinked”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “the surface” with “a surface”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, delete the extraneous period mark at the end of the sentence.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please insert “or” prior to “derivatives”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “Pentafluoropropyl” with “pentafluoropropyl”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, claim contains a second sentence. There is also no antecedent basis for the term “the zwitterionic methacrylate”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and sulfobetaine” with “or sulfobetaine”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “block” with “blocks”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “and derivatives” with “or derivatives”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “blocks are” with “blocks is”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “block” with “blocks”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and 5(6)” with “or 5(6)”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the crown” with “a crown”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “block comprise” with “blocks comprises”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “and derivatives” with “or derivatives”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “cations are” with “cations is”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “and Pb2+” with “or Pb2+”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “one or more” prior to “crown.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “block” with “blocks”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 4, please replace “being the membrane” with “is the membrane”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 5, please insert “first” prior to “membrane”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 5, please replace “having” with “has”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 6/7, the phrase “of the first membrane for target cation separation” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 8, please replace “at least one” with “first”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 9, please insert “target cation” prior to “separation”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 10, delete “the” which precedes “bound”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 26, line 11, please replace “ether polymer” with “ether-based”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “cells comprising” with “cells comprises”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “a membrane for separation of the” with “the membrane for selective separation of”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, please replace “in accordance with claim 1” with “of claim 1”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, delete “the” which precedes “of the one or more”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the phrase “for target cation separation” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the phrase “for target cation separation” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “the first” with “a first”; there in no antecedent basis for a first anion exchange membrane in claim.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, please replace “are selectively” with “is selectively”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, please replace “transport” with “transported”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, the phrase “of the membrane for target cation separation” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “ether-based monomers” with “ether-containing monomers”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “crown ether containing” prior to “polymers”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “capable of” with “that”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “binding” with “binds”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please insert “one or more” prior to “target”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “cation” with “cations”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demeter et al. (US 11,020,713).
Demeter et al. teaches a cation exchange membrane coated on at least one side with a layer comprising a composition made of polymer and ionophore, wherein the layer is 0.1 to 10 wt % of a total weight of the cation exchange membrane, and the ionophore comprises 0.5 to 5 wt % of the ionophore. The ionophore is a 14-crown-4 ether configured such that the cation exchange membrane selectively separates lithium from an influent stream. Figure 1 shows an electrodialysis system comprising a coated cation exchange membrane disposed between a cathode and an anode. Figure 2 shows an electrodialysis system comprising a coated cation exchange membrane disposed between a cathode and an anode with an anion exchange membrane positioned between the coated cation exchange membrane and the cathode.
Claims 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demeter et al. (US 11,020,713) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114749025).
The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Demeter et al. teaches use of a 14-crown-4 ether as an ionophore, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Wang et al. (paragraph 0008]) to use a 15-crown-5 ether, which is well known in the art to exhibit selective complexation for lithium ions. Since the interaction between magnesium ions is weak, one may use this crown ether to separate lithium ions from magnesium ions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare a cation exchange membrane containing14-crown-4 ether and/or15-crown-5 ether based on the combined teachings. The person of ordinary skill in the art also would have found it obvious to apply a coating of suitable thickness to achieve effective separation of ions, such as the unexceptional and broad range of 5 nm to 500 µm recited in claims.
Conclusion
Subject of claim 2 is patentably distinct over the disclosure of Demeter et al. (US 11,020,713). Reference does not teach chemically bonding a crown-ether based building block to a polymer by grafting, incorporation, or crosslinking, and disposing the resulting material on a cation exchange membrane. Reference also does not teach the system of claim 15 having recited configuration of components, and therefore, it does not teach the separation method recited in claim 17. For purposes of completing PTO-326, the status of claims 13, 16, and 18 is listed as “objected to”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights