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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites “where A is glassy block” should read “where A is a glassy block.”
Claim 11, line 1 recites “the polymer is a poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-4-vinylpyridine)” should read “the polymer is a poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-b-(4-vinylpyridine)).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the exemplified SISV and SESO tetrablock polymers and membranes prepared under the disclosed conditions, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of ABAC tetrablock polymers having any glassy A block, rubbery B block, and hydrophilic C block, or membranes and supported ionic liquid membranes formed from that full genus. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without undue experimentation.
Although the specification lists numerous possible polymers for blocks A, B, and C, the working examples are principally limited to SISV and SESO (paragraphs 0066-0069). The specification provides insufficient guidance for synthesizing the full range of claimed combinations, particularly where the selected blocks require different or incompatible polymerization methods. For claims 12 and 13, the specification demonstrates that membrane formation is unpredictable (paragraphs 0180-0187). Considering the breath of the claims, the unpredictability of block polymer synthesis and self-assembly, and the amount of experimentation required, the full claimed scope is not enabled without undue experimentation.
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 5 is 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 5 recites that block C comprises “another suitable nucleophile.” It is unclear what property, or reaction renders a nucleophile “suitable.” Also, the use of “another” renders unclear whether the preceding quaternized ammonium ion, pyridinium, and piperazinium groups are intended to constitute nucleophiles or whether nucleophile identifies a separate class of materials.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., Journal American Chemical Society, 2012 (hereinafter “Zhang2012”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang2012 discloses a poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-b-ethylene oxide) tetrablock terpolymer, abbreviated as SISO (Abstract; page 7636, col.1). Zhang2012’s SISO polymer corresponds to the claimed ABAC arrangement, wherein: the first polystyrene block corresponds to the first A block; the polyisoprene block corresponds to the B block; the second polystyrene block corresponds to the second A block; and the polyethylene oxide block corresponds to the C block (Fig. 1; Abstract; page 7636, col. 2). Polystyrene is a glassy polymer block, polyisoprene is a rubbery polymer block and polyethylene oxide is a hydrophilic block.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhang2012 discloses that block A is polystyrene, as shown in Figure 1 and evidenced by the two polystyrene blocks in the disclosed poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-b-ethylene oxide) tetrablock (Fig. 1; Abstract; page 7636, col. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang2012 discloses that the B block is polyisoprene (Fig. 1; Abstract; page 7636, col. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang2012 discloses that the C block is polyethylene oxide (Fig. 1; Abstract; page 7636, col. 2).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Journal American Chemical Society, 2012 (hereinafter “Zhang2012”) in view Zhang et al., Macromolecular rapid communications, 2019 (hereinafter “Zhang2019”).
Zhang2012 is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that block C comprises a quaternized ammonium ion, pyridinium, piperazinium, another suitable nucleophile, or any combination thereof. However, Zhang2019 discloses isoporous block-copolymer membranes containing a hydrophilic poly(4-vinylpyridine) block and teaches quaternizing the pyridine groups with alkyl iodides. The quaternization converts the pyridine groups into pyridinium groups and permits control of membrane charge density and effective pore size (Fig. 1a; Page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Zhang2019’s terminal hydrophilic PEO block and quaternize the P4VP of Zhang2012. The motivation would have been to provide charge functionality and pore size control taught by Zhange2019.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Journal American Chemical Society, 2012 (hereinafter “Zhang2012”) in view Mok et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20200047135 A1, February 13, 2020 (hereinafter “Mok”).
Zhang2012 is relied upon as above. Mok’s exemplified OSISO polymer is a pentablock, it contains the same contiguous PS-PI-PS-PO sequence as Zhang2012’s SISO tetrablock and employs PS, PI and PO for the same glassy, rubbery, and hydrophilic functions.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that block A is from about 25 wt.% to about 80 wt.% of the polymer. However, Mok discloses that the styrenic block content may constitute 30-80 wt. % of the block copolymer. Mok’s OSISO examples contain PE-6A: 58.0 wt. % styrene; and PE-6B: 60.7 wt. % styrene (Table 8; paragraph 0169). These values fall within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ these know styrene proportions in Zhang2012’s SISO polymer to obtain the desired glassy structural phase.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that block B is from about 5 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of the polymer. However, Mok discloses closely related OSISO pentablock polymers containing the same contiguous PS-PI-PS-PO sequence. Mok discloses that the rubbery block may constitute 10-40 wt. % of the block copolymer. Table 8 reports 24.0 wt. % PI for PE-6A and 31.6 wt. % PI for PE-6B (Table 8; paragraph 0169). These values fall within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Mok’ demonstrated PI proportions to Zhange2012’s SISO polymer because the selected PI proportions within the disclosed range to the desired balance between elasticity and mechanical stability.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that block C is from about 10 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of the polymer. However, Mok discloses closely related OSISO pentablock polymers containing the same contiguous PS-PI-PS-PO sequence. Mok’s OSISO sample PE-6A contains 18.0 wt. % polyethylene oxide (Table 8; paragraph 0169). This value falls within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to employ approximately 18 wt. % PEO as the hydrophilic C block in Zhang2012’s SISO polymer because the selection would have been expected to provide sufficient hydrophilic content for phase separation.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang2012 fails to disclose block A and block B are present in the polymer at a ratio of from about 2:1 to about 6:1. However, Mok’s PE-6A contains 58 wt. % styrene and 24.0 wt. % (Table 8; paragraph 0169). The corresponding ratio of total styrene content to isoprene content is: 2.42:1. This ratio falls within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ this PS to PI ratio in Zhang2012’s SISO tetrablock because both references use PS as the glassy component and PI as the rubbery component. The relative proportions of the glassy and rubbery blocks were result-effective variables that a skilled artisan would have routinely adjusted to balance mechanical strength and elasticity.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that the polymer has a molecular weight of from about 50 kDa to about 250 kDa. However, Mok reports a GPC weight average molecular weight of 225 kg/mol (225 kDa) for OSISO sample PE-6A and 99 kg/mol (99 kDa) for sample PE-6B. (Table 8; paragraph 0170). Mok also identifies a molecular weight range of 60,000 – 200,000 g/mol (60 – 200 kDa) (paragraphs 0073, 0105). Both values fall within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to prepare Zhang2012’s SISO tetra block with a molecular weight within Mok’s demonstrated range because the molecular weight of a block copolymer is a known result effective variable affecting mechanical strength. A person or ordinary skill would have routinely selected molecular weight within the overlapping range to obtain a processable polymer having suitable mechanical and morphological properties.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang2012 fails to disclose that the polymer is a poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-4-vinylpyridine) or poly(styrene-b-(ethylene-alt-propylene)-b-styrene-b-ethylene oxide). However, Mok identifies both polyethylene oxide and poly(4-vinylpyridine) as suitable hydrophilic blocks in closely related glassy-rubbery-glassy-hydrophilic block copolymers (paragraphs 0042, 0094, 0126). Substitution of Mok’s P4VP hydrophilic block for the terminal PEO block of Zhang’s SISO tetra block yields: PS-PI-PS-P4VP which corresponds to the claimed poly(styrene-b-isoprene-b-styrene-4-vinylpyridine). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the substitution as Mok identifies PEO and P4VP as alternatives for the same hydrophilic block position.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang2012 fails to disclose a membrane, comprising: the polymer of claim 1 organized to define pores with an average pore diameter of about 15 nm to about 50 nm. However, Mok discloses forming porous membranes from closely related block copolymers containing glassy PS blocks, a rubbery PI block, and hydrophilic poly(alkylene oxide) blocks using solvent/nonsolvent-induced phase separation (paragraphs 0030, 0080-0081). Mok discloses average pore size of 5-50 nm and reports measured pore sizes of 20 ± 5 nm and 23 ± 5 nm (Figs. 8-14; paragraphs 0074, 0120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Mok’s membrane-forming process to Zhang2012’s SISO tetrablock because both polymers contain the same PS-PI-PS-poly(alkaline oxide) sequence, with the respective blocks performing the same glassy, rubbery, and hydrophilic functions. Selecting a pore range would have involved routine optimization of the polymer concentration, and solvent composition.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang2012 and Mok, as applied to claim 12, in further view Grünauer et al., Journal of Membrane Science, 2015 (hereinafter “Grünauer”).
Zhang2012 is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang2012 fails to disclose a supported ionic liquid membrane, comprising: the membrane of claim 12 and an ionic liquid within the pores. However, Grünauer discloses supported ionic-liquid membranes in which ionic liquids (including 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium dicyanamide) are retained within the pores of isoporous PS-b-P4VP block-copolymer membranes for gas separation (Table 1; page 226, section 2.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to introduce Grünauer’s ionic liquid into the pores of the Zhang2012-Mok membrane to obtain a supported ionic liquid membrane. Grünauer demonstrates that isoporous block-copolymer membranes are suitable supports for ionic liquids, and a skilled artisan would have expected the nanoscale pores of zhang2012-Mok membrane to retain the ionic liquid in the same manner.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Zhang, Jingwen (Phase behaviors of ABAC tetrablock terpolymers. University of Minnesota, 2012) teaches ABAC tetrablock of claim 1. Table 5.1 discloses weight fractions of the tetrablock of claims 6-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights