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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 23 of the Specifications states “the method comprises optimizing a plurality of reactants”, which is not clear as to which reactants, and how they are being optimized and what optimization they are going through.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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.
Claims 1-14 have the phrase “method (500)” which refers to the method in figure 5. It is not clear if the whole method is referenced with all steps, or certain steps. If the method is referenced and all of its parts, then it should be noted that not all of the steps are claimed, such as “seal half cells of a tubular cell”.
Claim 1 contains the term “optimizing”, and in combination with the Specifications, it is not clear what the term means, or how the optimization is done. In the Specifications it states “the method comprises optimizing a plurality of reactants”, and it is not clear what optimization is occurs or how it occurs.
Claims 8 and 9 contains the phrase “predefined conditioning time” and “predefined pretreatment time”, the Specifications do not clearly define what the starting point in of the “predefined pretreatment” and “predefined conditioning. The Specifications indicate that the time increases in 24 hour increments but does not define the initial pretreatment/conditioning time.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the parameters" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the measurement technique" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation "the conductivity" in lines 9 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the water uptake" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
Roelofs et al., US 2014/0120341, teach a polymeric ion exchange membranes for electrochemical cells, see Abstract. Different membranes are disclosed such as perfluorosulfonic acid, or polymers derived from perfluoro(3,6—dioxa-4-methyl-7-octenesulfonyl fluoride), perfluorinated vinyl ether and perfluoro(3-oxa—4-pentenesulfonyl fluoride) see paragraphs 105 and 106. Roelofs et al. does not teach using triethyl silanol as a reagent to hydrolyze the sulfonyl fluoride group.
Sergei S Ivanchev and S V Myakin 2010 Russ. Chem. Rev. 79 101, teach membranes made from perfluorinated polymers and used as ion exchange membranes. Silano l groups of alkoxysilanes are disclosed, and their polycondensation. It is further disclosed that the non-condensed silanol groups improve water-retaining properties of the co-polymer and optimize the transfer of hydrated protons through the membrane. Ivanchev et al. do no teach triethyl silanol, or the silanol undergoing a nucleophilic exchange with the sulfonyl fluoride group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH ZOTOV whose telephone number is (571)272-0627. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi R Kelley can be reached at (571)270-1831. 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.
/V.V.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
