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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 11 has been removed from the claim set. It appears the limitation of claim 11 was included with claim 10. The examiner believes claim 11 was intended to be cancelled, however, claim 11 should still be included as part of the claim set with an identifier that it is cancelled.
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 15, 24, and 25 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.
Claim 15 depends from a cancelled claim (claim 14) and therefore is indefinite.
Claim 24 recites “the composite material, laminate or article of claim 1”. Claim 1 does not recite a laminate or article. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and is also rejected.
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/046661 to Bara et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bara) in view of WO 2015/073141 to Smigelski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Smigelski).
In regard to claim 30, as discussed in paragraphs [0059] – [0063], Bara discloses a method of forming a composite membrane material. The method includes providing a poly(ionic liquid)s polymer solution and a porous support. The poly(ionic liquid)s polymer solution is deposited on at least one side of the porous support to form the composite material. Steps that are recited to be optional are not required. As discussed in paragraph [0061], however, the composite material can be subject to a heating step.
As discussed in paragraphs [0056] – [0058] of Bara, the porous support can be a polymer membrane, and can be made from polysulfone or polytetrafluoroethylene. Bara does not disclose the support to be an expanded porous membrane with a microstructure of fibrils. Smigelski discloses a coated membrane, as discussed in paragraph [0064]. The membrane can include a similar porous substrate, or support. The substrate can be made from similar materials, such as polysulfone and polytetrafluoroethylene, and have a microstructure of fibrils and nodes interconnecting the fibrils. Such a substrate can be considered an expanded porous membrane having a first side and a second side, where the expanded porous membrane has a void volume providing pores and a microstructure of fibrils, and nodes interconnecting the fibrils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bara to form the support membrane as an expanded porous membrane having a first side and a second side; where the expanded porous membrane has a void volume providing pores and a microstructure of fibrils, and optionally nodes interconnecting the fibrils as suggested by Smigelski as this is a known structure for a support membrane.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 – 18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bara and Smigelski as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of the “Ionic liquid-based materials: a platform to design engineered CO2 separation membranes” article by Tomé et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tome).
In regard to claim 1, the combination of Bara and Smigelski, as discussed above in section 9, results in a composite material comprising: an expanded porous membrane having a thickness, where the expanded porous membrane has a microstructure of fibrils, and optionally nodes interconnecting the fibrils, and a void volume providing pores; and a poly(ionic liquid)s polymer (PILs). Bara is used as the primary reference disclosing the poly(ionic liquid)s polymer (PILs). As discussed in paragraph [0016], Bara provides PILs that can have a bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide anion and an imidazolium-based cation. Bara does not disclose any of the PILs recited in claim 1. In particular Bara does not disclose a diallyldimethylammonium cation.
Tome relates to similar membranes. As discussed in paragraphs [0067] – [0069] of Bara and Table 1 of Tome, both can be used for similar CO2 separations. Table 12 of Tome shows different PILs that can be used in the CO2 separation membranes. PIL 6 uses a diallyldimethylammonium cation and can have a bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide anion, when X = NTf2. It is noted that NTf2 and TFSI are both names for the bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide anion.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bara and Smigelski to use poly (diallyldimethylammonium) bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide as the PIL in the membrane as suggested by Tome as this is an equivalently known PIL that can be similarly used for CO2 separation membranes.
In regard to claim 2, in the combination, the PIL forms a coating on the nodes and fibrils of the expanded porous membrane.
In regard to claim 3, in the combination, the PIL can fill at least a portion of the void volume of the expanded porous membrane.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, as discussed above, the expanded porous membrane in the combination can be made from expanded polytetrafluoroethylene.
In regard to claim 10, composite material in the combination of Bara, Smigelski, and Tome inherently has a porosity of less than about 99%. The claim allows for a porosity from greater than about 20% to about 99%, or of less than 20%, which is effectively a range form 0% to about 99%.
In regard to claims 12 and 13, as discussed in paragraphs [0071] and [0103] of Bara, at least one active agent, such as a metal, can include in the membrane. The active agent can be considered to be covalently or non-covalently bound to the PILs.
In regard to claim 16, Bara is used as the primary reference. As disclosed in paragraph [0155] and figure 2, the PILs can be present at 20 wt%, which falls in the claimed range.
In regard to claim 17, Bara is used as the primary reference. As disclosed in claim 27, the composite membrane can include a further layer than can be considered a support layer, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regard to claim 18, the composite material in the combination of Bara, Smigelski, and Tome has all of the required structural features and therefore is considered to have the same properties as the claimed composite material. Therefore, the composite material in the combination of Bara, Smigelski, and Tome inherently has a CO2 absorption capacity from about 0.3 mmol C02/g PILs to about 1.2 mmol C02/g PILs, or wherein the composite material has a CO2 permeability of more than 1.0 barrer, or wherein the composite material has a N2 permeability of less than 1.5 barrer, or wherein the composite material has a selectivity calculated as CO2 permeability / N2 permeability of greater than 8.0.
In regard to claims 22 and 23, the composite membrane in the combination of Bara, Smigelski, and Tome has all of the required structural features and can also be considered a laminate or an article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 26, the combination of Bara, Smigelski, and Tome discloses a similar method for forming a composite material. None of these references, however, teach or suggest a step of expanding the composite material after step (b) and/or after step (c) wherein the poly(ionic liquid)s polymer is partially or fully imbibed into the void volume of the microstructure of the porous polymer membrane. Claim 29 depends from claim 26 and is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2016/040632 discloses a similar expanded porous membrane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
