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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on the 18649475 application filed 04/29/24
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 are pending and claim(s)1,2,3,4,11,12,13,14,15,16 have been fully considered.
Claim(s) 5,6,7,8,9,10, were non-elected/withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 9/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1,2,3,4,11,12,13,14,15,16 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(s) 1 has the phrase, “said backbone,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, unclear which of the backbones is being referred too.
Claim(s) 16 has the phrase, “the thickness,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element.
Though one or more of the claim(s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following Double Patenting, 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1,2 ,3 ,4 ,11 ,12 ,13 ,14 ,15 ,16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,18,20,21 of U.S. Patent No. 11969722 (herein known as BAHAR722). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the anion exchange polymer and membrane as recited in the patented claim(s) clearly envisages the anion exchange polymer and membrane of the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170252707 (herein known as BAHAR) in view of US 20140271774 (herein known as DRUMHELLER)
With regard to claim 1, BAHAR sufficiently teaches an anion exchange polymer comprising (as follows, and):, especially at abstract, title, claim 1, para 9
a) polyphenylenes homopolymer backbones, especially at fig 4, y=0
with side chain consisting of R' (N+, consistent with instant fig 1A; i.e. hydrophilic side chains) with a CF3 linkage to said backbone (consistent with instant fig 1A), especially at fig 4
wherein R' (within scope of said hydrophilic side chains are linear hydrocarbon side chains) having (N+, within scope of functional groups), especially at fig 4
BAHAR does not specifically teach polydopamine
But, DRUMHELLER sufficiently teaches polydopamine (within the scope of a functional additive comprising a radical scavenger comprising polydopamine), especially at para 186
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide BAHAR with polydopamine (within the scope of a functional additive comprising a radical scavenger comprising polydopamine) of DRUMHELLER for the benefit as a radical scavenger, as taught by DRUMHELLER, especially at para 186.
With regard to claim 2, BAHAR sufficiently teaches due to absence within the range of wherein the polyphenylenes backbones are aryl ether linkage free, especially at fig 4, abstract.
With regard to claim 3, BAHAR sufficiently teaches wherein the functional groups of the anion exchange polymer is quaternary ammonium, especially at fig 4, abstract.
With regard to claim 13, BAHAR sufficiently teaches n anion exchange membrane comprising (claim 1):,
a porous scaffold 10, especially at para 33
b) the anion exchange polymer of claim 1, especially at see discussion of claim 1
wherein the anion exchange polymer extends from a "one" (first) side of the porous scaffold to a "opposing" (second) side of the porous scaffold, especially at abstract, para 11
BAHAR does not specifically teach a mixture with polydopamine
But, DRUMHELLER sufficiently teaches a mixture with polydopamine (i.e. within and coupled), especially at para 62, 140, 186
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide BAHAR with a mixture with polydopamine (in combination within the scope of wherein at least a portion of the polydopamine is configured within the anion exchange membrane and is coupled to said porous scaffold) of DRUMHELLER for the benefit as a radical scavenger, as taught by DRUMHELLER, especially at para 186.
With regard to claim 14, BAHAR sufficiently teaches wherein the porous scaffold comprises a porous polymer, especially at claim 5.
With regard to claim 15, BAHAR sufficiently teaches wherein the porous polymer is poly(tetrafluoroethylene), especially at claim 5.
With regard to claim 16, BAHAR sufficiently teaches wherein the thickness is within the claimed range, especially at para 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170252707 (herein known as BAHAR) in view of US 20150188175 (herein known as PEARMAN), US 20120141919 (herein known as LEE), and US 20140271774 (herein known as DRUMHELLER)
With regard to claim 12, BAHAR does not specifically teach wherein the radical scavenger further comprises manganese oxide
But, PEARMAN sufficiently teaches manganese oxide (radical scavenger) , especially at para 15
Also, LEE sufficiently teaches manganese oxide, as a "radical scavengers", especially at para 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide BAHAR-DRUMHELLER with manganese oxide (radical scavenger) of PEARMAN, since LEE sufficiently teaches manganese oxide, as a "radical scavengers", especially at para 17.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170252707 (herein known as BAHAR) in view of US 20120141919 (herein known as LEE), and US 20140271774 (herein known as DRUMHELLER)
With regard to claim 4, BAHAR does not specifically teach carbon nanotubes
But, LEE sufficiently teaches carbon nanotubes, especially at abstract, para 15,53
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide BAHAR with carbon nanotubes of LEE a support to "increase the mechanical strength" as sufficiently taught by 20120141919 LEE, especially at abstract.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170252707 (herein known as BAHAR) in view of US 20150188175 (herein known as PEARMAN) and US 20140271774 (herein known as DRUMHELLER)
With regard to claim 11, BAHAR does not specifically teach wherein the radical scavenger further comprises cerium oxide.
But, PEARMAN sufficiently teaches cerium oxide (radical scavenger), especially at fig 1a
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to combine BAHAR with cerium oxide (radical scavenger) of PEARMAN, and PEARMAN sufficiently teaches "cerium oxide's radical scavenging ability" in relation to an ion exchange membrane, especially at fig 1A, para 53,61.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571)270-7872. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776