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 .
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 7, 17, 20, 22-25, 27, and 28 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.
Regarding Claims 7, 17, 24, and 25: the phrase "for example" or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 20, 22-25, 27 and 28 are included as they depend on claim 17 rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0317870 A1, Tew et al.
Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, see Abstract and paragraph 17. Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, see paragraph 17. Figure 23, shown below, illustrates the different components of the norbornene block polymers disclosed by Tew et al., see page 33. Figure 33, see page 30, shown below, shows the norbornene starting norbornene monomers and polymers made, where R1 and R2 and hydrophobic groups and R3 is a hydrophilic group. The multiblock norbornene-based copolymer of claim 1 is anticipated by Tew et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Tew et al. teach the hydrophobic groups may include alkyl groups such as C1-C10, see paragraph 17.
As for claim 36, Tew et al. teach using ring opening metathesis polymerization in the synthesis of the target polymer which contains norbornene-based building blocks, see paragraph 107. Fig. 33, shown below, shows the ring opening metathesis polymerization of the norbornene-based monomers.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 3, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0317870 A1, Tew et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0046752, Bell et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 35: Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach the vinyl addition reaction which maintains the norbornene ring structure represented in Formula 1.
Bell et al. teach polynorbornene copolymer using a vinyl addition polymerization, retaining the norbornene ring, see paragraph 130-131. Examples of the norbornene monomers used if the synthesis olefin addition polymers are 5-octylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-ene, which meets the limitation of claim 3, see paragraph 146. Bell et al. further teach that cyclic olefin polymers like polynorbornene are widely used in electronics, optoelectronics, amongst other applications, see paragraph 5. The unique advantage of the cyclic polyolefin block copolymers is the utility in a variety of applications including membrane materials and can be used in things such as separation of organics from biomass or other organic wastes, see paragraph 223. The ability to combine different types of blocks encompassing different norbornene repeat units gives the membranes desirable flux and separation factors which give them an advantage, see paragraph 392.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the hydrophobic and hydrophilic norbornene multiblock polymers of Tew et al. and the vinyl addition polymerization retaining the norbornene ring of Bell et al. because the retention of the cyclic polynorbornene gives desirable flux and separation factors to the membranes. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Claims 5, 16-17, 20, 22, 23, 28, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0317870 A1, Tew et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2010/138958, Coates et al.
As for claim 5, Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. do not teach the olefinic multiblock alkene based copolymer of Formula II.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach the polyethylene backbone bring hydrophobic support necessary for high ion incorporation required to maximize conductivity without the detrimental loss of mechanical stability due to swelling, see paragraph 161. Coates et al. further teach tetraalkylammonium-functionalized polyethylene which have desirable mechanical strength and hydroxide conductivity, paragraph 37.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the norbornene-based hydrophobic and hydrophilic block polymers of Tew et al. with the addition of polyethylene or other polyolefin block polymers of Coates et al. because polyethylene functionalized with tetraalkylammonium groups have desirable mechanical strength and hydroxide and gives high ion incorporation to maximize conductivity without the detrimental loss of stability due to swelling. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claims 16 and 40: Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach an ion-exchange membrane.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach ionomers comprising of tetraalkylammonium groups, norbornene, and a polyolefin, see paragraph 10. Coates et al. further teach that the polymers disclosed can be used in an alkaline anion exchange membrane, paragraph 16. Electrolyte membranes can act as a barrier between a fuel cell and oxidant stream and serve as an ion conducting medium, and increasing the conductivity of the membranes can achieve higher operating efficiency, which is an important goal in the field, see paragraph 4. Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. further teach devices comprising of the disclosed ionomers such as hydrogen generation or water purification devices, or in fuel cells, see paragraph 75.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the hydrophobic and hydrophilic norbornene multiblock polymers of Tew et al. and the anion-exchange membrane of Coates et al. because the electrolyte membranes help achieve higher operating efficiency and conductivity, and can be used as devices or in devices such as fuel cells. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claims 17, 20, 22, 23 and 37: Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks being crosslinked.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach crosslinking of the ionomers using tetraalkylammonium functionalized monomers, which contain two ammonium units and two olefins within the same molecule, to enable crosslinking without the need of dicyclopentadiene, see paragraph 129. The amount of copolymer reacted with the ion containing monomer was taught to be 29 mol %, see paragraph 154. Ionic polymers with a large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling, crosslinking is taught to minimize this undesirable effect, see paragraph 107. Crosslinked materials also demonstrate greater tensile strength, mechanical strength and less strain, see paragraph 166.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the hydrophobic and hydrophilic norbornene multiblock polymers of Tew et al. and the ion exchange polymers containing norbornene anion exchange block polymers, crosslinking and crosslinking agents of Coates et al. because ionic polymers with large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling and crosslinking minimizes this effect and increase greater tensile and mechanical strength and reduce strain . DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
As for claim 28, Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks being crosslinked, or ion exchange capacity.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach crosslinking of the ionomers using tetraalkylammonium functionalized monomers, which contain two ammonium units and two olefins within the same molecule, to enable crosslinking without the need of dicyclopentadiene, see paragraph 129. Ionic polymers with a large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling, crosslinking is taught to minimize this undesirable effect, see paragraph 107. Crosslinked materials also demonstrate greater tensile strength, mechanical strength but also less strain, see paragraph 166. Coates et al. further teach ion exchange capacity of the material being 2.3 ± 0.2 mmol, which falls into the range of claim 28.
“When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 24 and 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0317870 A1, Tew et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0046752, Bell et al. and WO 2010/138958, Coates et al.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 9: Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach hydrophilic groups containing ammonium head groups, and the vinyl addition polymerization.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach the hydrophilic copolymer with an ammonium cationic head group, see paragraph 60. The ammonium cationic head group differs from the claimed structure of formula 3, wherein there is only one carbon rather than C2-C20 alkyl chain as of claim 6. Coates et al. does disclose that the linker, R7, see paragraph 15, can be comprised from 1 to 20 carbons connecting the ammonium groups. Further, the R8 is indicated to be an alkyl group ranging from 1 to 20 carbons, see paragraph 15. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that this could also work for the carbon connecting to the norbornene ring rather than just the R7 linker because hydrophobic support helps maximize conductivity without detrimental loss of mechanical stability. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bell et al. teach polynorbornene copolymer using a vinyl addition polymerization, retaining the norbornene ring, see paragraph 130-131. Examples of the norbornene monomers used if the synthesis olefin addition polymers are 5-octylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-ene, which meets the limitation of claim 3, see paragraph 146. Bell et al. further teach that cyclic olefin polymers like polynorbornene are widely used in electronics, optoelectronics, amongst other applications, see paragraph 5. The unique advantage of the cyclic polyolefin block copolymers is the utility in a variety of applications including membrane materials and can be used in things such as separation of organics from biomass or other organic wastes, see paragraph 223. The ability to combine different types of blocks encompassing different norbornene repeat units gives the membranes desirable flux and separation factors which give them an advantage, see paragraph 392.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the hydrophobic and hydrophilic norbornene multiblock polymers of Tew et al. and the ion exchange polymers containing norbornene anion exchange block polymers, crosslinking and crosslinking agents of Coates et al. and vinyl addition polymerization of Bell et al. because ionic polymers with large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling and crosslinking minimizes this effect and increase greater tensile and mechanical strength and reduce strain, coupled with the retention of the cyclic polynorbornene gives desirable flux and separation factors to the membranes. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claims 24 and 25: Tew et al. teach of norbornene-based building blocks which have independent variation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, and ion exchange polymers (see paragraph 202), which meet the limitations of claim 1.
Tew et al. does not teach hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks being crosslinked, and the vinyl addition polymerization.
Coates et al. teach ion exchange polymers containing norbornene, see paragraph 12. Coates et al. teach crosslinking of the ionomers using tetraalkylammonium functionalized monomers, which contain two ammonium units and two olefins within the same molecule, to enable crosslinking without the need of dicyclopentadiene, see paragraph 129. Ionic polymers with a large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling, crosslinking is taught to minimize this undesirable effect, see paragraph 107. Crosslinked materials also demonstrate greater tensile strength, mechanical strength and less strain, see paragraph 166. Coates et al. further teaches polyolefins, and crosslinked polyolefins, which contain ammonium crosslinking groups, paragraph 57, see structures VI, which is included in the anionic exchange membrane. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that this could also work for the carbon connecting to the norbornene ring rather than just the R7 linker because hydrophobic support helps maximize conductivity without detrimental loss of mechanical stability. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Coates et al. does not teach vinyl addition polymerization.
Bell et al. teach polynorbornene copolymer using a vinyl addition polymerization, retaining the norbornene ring, see paragraph 130-131. Examples of the norbornene monomers used if the synthesis olefin addition polymers are 5-octylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-ene, which meets the limitation of claim 3, see paragraph 146. Bell et al. further teach that cyclic olefin polymers like polynorbornene are widely used in electronics, optoelectronics, amongst other applications, see paragraph 5. The unique advantage of the cyclic polyolefin block copolymers is the utility in a variety of applications including membrane materials and can be used in things such as separation of organics from biomass or other organic wastes, see paragraph 223. The ability to combine different types of blocks encompassing different norbornene repeat units gives the membranes desirable flux and separation factors which give them an advantage, see paragraph 392.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have been obvious to combine the hydrophobic and hydrophilic norbornene multiblock polymers of Tew et al. and the ion exchange polymers containing norbornene anion exchange block polymers, crosslinking and crosslinking agents of Coates et al. and vinyl addition polymerization of Bell et al. because ionic polymers with large content of ionic groups can suffer from significant swelling and crosslinking minimizes this effect and increase greater tensile and mechanical strength and reduce strain, coupled with the retention of the cyclic polynorbornene gives desirable flux and separation factors to the membranes. DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVIC 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
Prosecution Insights