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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites ” the polymer resin and the anion-permselective material solution are mixed in the range of 0:6 to 6:6 by volume”. The claim is rendered indefinite because the claimed range allows for no polymer resin while claim 1 upon which the claim depends requires a polymer resin. Therefore it is not clear if the method requires or does not require polymer resin.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arges et al. (US2023/0077400) hereinafter Arges.
Regarding claim 1, Arges teaches:
A manufacturing method of a porous anion exchange membrane (Fig 1c; [0004, 0038]) comprising steps of:
preparing a mixture by mixing an anion-permselective material solution, a polymer resin, and inorganic salt particles (Fig 1c; [0004, 0038]);
pouring and heating the mixture into a mold to prepare a molded body (Fig 1c; [0004, 0038]); and
removing an inorganic salt in the molded body (Fig 1c; [0004, 0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges further teaches the inorganic salt particles are at least one selected from sodium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride and calcium chloride ([0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges further teaches the polymer resin is a thermoplastic resin ([0015, 0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges further teaches the removing of the inorganic salt in the molded body is removing the inorganic salt through washing ([0038]).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges.
Regarding claim 10, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges does not teach the pouring and heating of the mixture into the mold to prepare the molded body is performed in a temperature range of 70°C to 80°C.
However, Arges teaches a heating temperature at 60°C ([0038]).
Applicant specification discloses that heating at a temperature range of 60°C to 90°C is suitable to effectively remove the organic solvent contained in the anion-permselective material solution, and to control the size of the nanopores.
It has been broadly held that differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP2144.05(II)(A).
Therefore, the claimed heating temperature range is made obvious in view of the heating temperature as taught by Arges since applicant disclosure teaches that the prior art heating temperature is suitable to effectively remove the organic solvent contained in the anion-permselective material solution, and to control the size of the nanopores and there is no evidence of record indicating that the claimed temperature range is critical or produces unexpected results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iliuta (US9908985).
Regarding claim 2, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges does not teach an average particle diameter D50 of the inorganic salt particles is in the range of 1 µm to 1000 µm.
Arges is silent as to the average particle diameter of the inorganic salt particles. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other methods of anion exchange membrane manufacture for the average particle diameter of the inorganic salt particles.
In prior art attempting to solve the same problem of forming pores in a polymer membranes, Iliuta teaches a method of forming pores in a polymer membrane by forming a NaCl-polymer blend membrane and leaching the NaCl from the NaCl-polymer blend membrane, and a range of values for the average particle diameter of the inorganic salt particles that overlaps with the claimed range (col 9, ln 25-40, ln 56-63).
Iliuta further teaches that the resulting pore size (col 7, ln 40-43) overlaps with the resulting pore size of applicant disclosure (p 18).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the portion of the average particle diameter of the inorganic salt particles as taught by Iliuta that overlaps with the claimed range and the results would have been predictable since the prior art references teach forming a NaCl-polymer blend membrane and leaching the NaCl from the NaCl-polymer blend membrane.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Oren et al. (US2005/0238937) hereinafter Oren.
Regarding claim 5, Arges teaches the method of claim 4.
Arges does not teach the thermoplastic resin is at least one selected from a polyester resin, a polypropylene resin, and an acryl resin.
In the same field of endeavor regarding ion exchange membranes, Oren teaches polypropylene as a polymer matrix material for an ion exchange membrane for the motivation of providing a membrane that is chemically resistant to some extent in acids and bases and to oxidizing environment ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermoplastic resin as taught by Arges with the polypropylene as taught by Oren in order to provide a membrane that is chemically resistant to some extent in acids and bases and to oxidizing environment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagino et al. (US2021/0077953) hereinafter Nagino.
Regarding claim 6, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges does not teach the polymer resin and the anion-permselective material solution are mixed in the range of 0:6 to 6:6 by volume. Therefore one of ordinary skill would be motivated to look to other methods of ion exchange membrane manufacture for the volume ratio between the polymer resin and the anion-permselective material solution.
In the same field of endeavor regarding ion exchange membranes, Nagino teaches a volume ratio between a polymer resin and ion permselective material of 55:45, i.e., 7.33:6 ([0064]). Therefore Nagino teaches a volume ratio between a polymer resin and ion permselective material that is close to the claimed range.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant specification discloses that when the mixing ratio is within the claimed range, the mechanical strength of the prepared porous anion exchange membrane may be obtained. In addition, when the polymer resin content exceeds the above range, the concentration of the anion-permselective material in the prepared porous anion exchange membrane is low to cause a problem that it is difficult to perform an electrochemical effect as the anion exchange membrane. However, Nagino also teaches a similar desire to improve both the ion permeation function and mechanical strength of the ion permeable membrane ([0062]). "It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree." See MPEP2144.05(III)(A). Therefore, the above applicant disclosure cannot be considered evidence of criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range since the claimed range produces a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind as compared to the prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the volume ratio between the polymer resin and ion permselective material as taught by Nagino and the results would have been predictable since both references teach using a mixture of polymer resin and ion permselective material to form an ion exchange membrane. The volume ratio of Nagino further makes obvious the claimed range since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene oxide)s with Various Head Groups: Effect of Head Groups on the Properties of Anion Exchange Membranes” (2018) hereinafter Lim.
Regarding claim 7, Arges teaches the method of claim 1.
Arges does not teach the anion-permselective material solution is obtained by reacting a solution obtained by dissolving a polymer synthesized through bromination in a polymer backbone in n-methyl-2 pyrrolidone with a trimethylamine solution.
In the same field of endeavor regarding ion exchange membranes, Lim teaches an anion-permselective material solution is obtained by reacting a solution obtained by dissolving a polymer synthesized through bromination in a polymer backbone (2.2, 2.3.1; BrPPO) in n-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (2.1, 2.3.1; NMP) with a trimethylamine solution (2.1, 2.3.1; TMA) for the motivation of forming QA-functionalized PPO (2.3.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anion-permselective material solution as taught by Arges with the anion-permselective material solution as taught by Lim in order to form QA-functionalized PPO.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arges as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Development of BPPO-based anion exchange membranes for electrodialysis desalination applications” (2016) hereinafter Khan.
Regarding claim 8, Arges in view of Lim teaches the method of claim 7.
Arges in view of Lim does not teach the polymer synthesized through bromination in the polymer backbone is brominated poly(2,6-dimethyl 1,4-phenylene)oxide.
In the same field of endeavor regarding ion exchange membranes, Khan teaches brominated poly(2,6-dimethyl 1,4-phenylene)oxide for the motivation of obtaining a surface that can be easily modified with hydrophilic materials to get hydrophilic surface (p 62, col 1, last paragraph; 2.1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer as taught by Arges in view of Lim to be brominated poly(2,6-dimethyl 1,4-phenylene)oxide as taught by Khan in order to obtain a surface that can be easily modified with hydrophilic materials to get hydrophilic surface.
Regarding claim 9, Arges in view of Lim and Khan teaches the method of claim 8.
Arges further teaches the concentration of the anion-permselective material solution is in the range of 10 wt% to 20 wt% ([0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights