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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanno et al., US 2023/0271132 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 Kanno teaches an electrolyte layer of an acid gas separator, which reads on the claimed “separational functional layer.” See Kanno [0145]. The electrolyte layer comprises:
An ionic liquid of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide. See Kanno [0147].
This reads on “an ionic liquid (claim 1)…wherein the ionic liquid contains an imidazolium ion (claim 11)…wherein the ionic liquid contains at least one selected from the group consisting…of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (claim 12).”
Poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene). See Kanno [0147].
This reads on “a polymer A that forms a crystal in the ionic liquid (claim 1)1…wherein the polymer A is a fluorine-based polymer (claim 2)…wherein polymer A is a copolymer of a monomer a1 partially fluorinated and a monomer a2 fully fluorinated (claim 6)…wherein polymer A is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (claim 7).”
A high molecular weight redox compound, which is a polymer. See Kanno [0147], [0036]. The electrolyte layer also comprises other polymers, such as polymethacrylate. Id. at [0063].
Either the high molecular weight redox compound or the polymethacrylate reads on “polymer B different from the polymer A (claim 1).”
The electrolyte layer, the ionic liquid, the poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), the high molecular weight redox compound, and the polymethacrylate are present in a mixed state, as claimed (claim 1). This is because the electrolyte layer is manufactured by creating a solution comprising the ionic liquid, the poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), the high molecular weight redox compound, and the other polymers, and then using the solution to make a film. See Kanno [0147].
Regarding claim 4, Kanno teaches that the high molecular weight redox compound (“polymer B”) can have a crosslinked structure. See Kanno [0036].
Regarding claim 5, Kanno teaches that the “polymer A” (poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)) and “polymer B” (the high molecular weight redox compound or the polymethacrylate) form an interpenetrating polymer network structure, as claimed. This is because the two polymers form the film (containing both polymer) but the polymers are not chemically bonded to each other, as the high molecular weight redox compound is a separate polymer used to adsorb/desorb an acidic gas through reduction and oxidation, with there being no discussion of the polymers in the film forming a covalent bond. See Kanno [0036]–[0037], [0147].
Regarding claim 8, Kanno teaches that the “polymer B” is polymethacrylate, which reads on a “(meth)acrylic polymer.” See Kanno [0063].
Regarding claim 10, Kanno teaches that the high molecular weight redox compound (the “polymer B”) can be a cross-linked product, as claimed. See Kanno [0036]. With respect to the limitation—“obtained by using at least one crosslinking agent selected from the group consisting of an amine-based crosslinking agent and an epoxy-based crosslinking agent”—this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art, absent evidence that the process limitations impart distinct structure compared to the prior art. See MPEP 2113, subsection I.
Regarding claim 13, Kanno teaches that a content of the ionic liquid is 60 wt% based on a total weight of the poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), high molecular weight redox compound, and the ionic liquid (as 12.0 g of ionic liquid, 6.0 g of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, and 2.0 g of high molecular weight redox compound are added to the mixture). See Kanno [0147]. This reads on “a content of the ionic liquid is 60 wt% or more based on a total weight of the separation functional layer” (emphasis added). Note that the claim describes “a total weight” of the layer, which can include the weight of some of the components of the layer, instead of the weight of all the components the entire layer.
Regarding claim 14, Kanno teaches that the electrolyte layer is configured for separating carbon dioxide from air (a gas mixture containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen), as claimed. See Kanno [0029].
Regarding claim 15, Kanno teaches a “separation membrane” of electrodes 11, 12 each made of a porous sheet and electrolyte layer 13 sandwiched between the electrodes 11, 12. See Kanno Fig. 1, [0076]–[0077], [0081]. The electrolyte sheet 13 reads on the “separation functional layer.” One of the electrodes 11, 12 reads on the “porous support member supporting the functional layer.”
PNG
media_image1.png
609
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kanno teaches that the “separation membrane” 11, 12, 13 has the structure as the claimed “separation membrane.” Therefore, the separation membrane of Kanno would be expected to have the same performance as when subjected to the claimed test. See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al., US 2023/0271132 A1 in view of Truong, US 2009/0202792 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Kanno teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kanno differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to “polymer B” being a co-polymer selected from the claimed group.
But Kanno teaches “polymer B” can be an acrylic-acid based polymer, such as polyacrylate, which is included in the film as an additive. See Kanno [0063]. With this in mind, Truong teaches a film comprising an acrylic resin, which is a copolymer of methyl methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate and methacrylic acid (reading on a copolymer of “n-butyl (meth)acrylate and (meth)acrylic acid)”), where the film has improved chemical and heat resistance compared to conventional materials. See Truong [0006], [0017]. It would have been obvious to use the acrylic resin of Truong as the acrylic-acid based polymer of Kanno to improve the durability of the film.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Makino et al., US 12,330,123 B2 (ionic liquid composition for carbon dioxide separation membrane); Takashi Makino, et., al., “Effect of Inclusion of 1-Butyl-3-Methylimidazolium Trifluoromethanesulfonate on CO2 and N2 Permeabilities for PVDF and PVDF-HFP Membranes,” International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 2015, 2, 14-20 (p. 15 describes a process where PVDF-HFP is mixed with [bmim]TfO]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 The instant disclosure says that the copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (i.e., poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) can form a crystal structure in [EMIM][FSI] (i.e., 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide). See Spec. [0054].
Prosecution Insights