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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 June 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-20 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the instant claims to add descriptions of the polymerization process to the claim language and added arguments that Li does not use the same method. However, the method steps are product-by-process limitations and the specific process does not need to be met only the product made by the process. Applicant does not appear to show structural differences that would necessarily be present only in the recited steps. Further, Li states that photopolymerization can be used as the initiation method and that the initiation can be performed under ultraviolet light.
Accordingly, the amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejections have been modified to the extent necessary to elaborate on new claim language.
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 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to Claim 1: Li teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane which is the reaction product of an amino-containing polyetheramine [0036], ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0037], and lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [0059]. Limitations to the photopolymerization reaction are considered to be product-by-process limitations which are considered to the extent that they change the structure implied by the steps and not the process itself. See MPEP § 2113. As Li teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane comprising all the same components it is considered to meet the product-by-process limitations. Additionally, Li teaches photopolymerization with ultraviolet light (Abstract).
As to Claim 2: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (supra). Li further teaches that the average molecular weight of the polyetheramine can be 400 Da [0038].
As to Claim 3: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (supra). Li further teaches that the ethoxylated acrylate monomer can be ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0037].
As to Claim 6: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (supra). Li further teaches that the composition can include a photoinitiator [0034] and a plasticizer [0053].
As to Claim 7: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (supra). Li further teaches that the lithium salt can be lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [0059].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to Claim 1: Li teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane which is the reaction product of an amino-containing polyetheramine [0036], ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0037], and lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [0059]. Li further teaches that the composition can include a photoinitiator [0034] and a plasticizer [0053]. Limitations to the photopolymerization reaction are considered to be product-by-process limitations which are considered to the extent that they change the structure implied by the steps and not the process itself. See MPEP § 2113. As Li teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane comprising all the same components it is considered to meet the product-by-process limitations. Additionally, Li teaches photopolymerization with ultraviolet light (Abstract).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to Claim 4: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (supra).
Li does not teach that the ratio of the ethoxylated acrylate monomer and the polyether amine oligomer are in the range of 6:1 to 40:1.
However, Li teaches that the composition can contain both the polyether amine oligomer and the ethoxylated acrylate monomer [0009]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try any combination of these two components including the range of 6:1 to 40:1 for the cross-linking reactant.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”) in view of Stark et al. (US 2020/0306698, hereinafter referred to as “Stark”)
As to Claim 5: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (see above). Li further teaches that the composition can include a porous film [0041].
Li does not teach that the composition includes a zeolitic imidazolate framework.
However, Stark teaches that zeolitic imidazolate frameworks are well known for forming thin porous films for free standing membranes [0002]. Li and Stark are analogous art in that they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, membrane compositions. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the zeolitic imidazolate framework of Stark to form the porous film of Li because Stark teaches zeolitic imidazolate frameworks form free standing membranes [0002].
Claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0271893, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) in view of Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to Claim 8: Wang teaches electrochromic devices comprising solid electrolyte layers [0004]. Wang further teaches that the electrochromic devices can include ethoxylated acrylate materials [0022] and that the device includes a working electrode and a counter electrode [0074].
However, Wang does not teach a membrane having the composition of claim 1.
Li teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane which is the reaction product of an amino-containing polyetheramine [0036], ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0037], and lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [0059]. Li further teaches that the membrane is then used to make a device by placing it between a positive electrode and a negative electrode [0014]. Wang and Li are analogous art in that they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electronic devices comprising ethoxylated acrylates. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer electrolyte membrane of Li in the electrochromic device of Wang because Li teaches the membrane improves the mechanical strength [0004].
As to Claim 11: Wang and Li render obvious the device of claim 8 (supra). Wang further teaches the counter electrode can be nickel (II) oxide [0080].
As to Claim 12: Wang and Li render obvious the device of claim 8 (supra). Wang further teaches the working electrode can be tungsten trioxide [0070].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0271893, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) in view of Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”) in further view of Du et al. (US 2021/0020949, hereinafter referred to as “Du”).
As to Claim 9: Wang and Li render obvious the electrochromic device of claim 8 (see above).
Wang does not teach that the device further contains an electrode-interface modification layer between the membrane and at least one of the anode and cathode.
However, Du teaches that solid electrolyte interphase layers can be used in electrochromic devices [0001] and that the solid electrolyte interphase layer can be disposed between both the anode and the membrane as well as the cathode and the membrane [0009]. Wang and Du are analogous art in that they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electric devices. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the solid electrolyte interphase layer of Du in the device of Wang because Du teaches the solid electrolyte interphase layer can protect the electrode or the separator [0004].
As to Claim 10: Wang, Li, and Du render obvious the device of claim 9 (supra). Du further teaches that the solid electrolyte interphase layer can be made of polyvinyl alcohol [0020], ethoxylated acrylate monomer [0036], and a lithium salt [0036].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN113131005, from the IDS filed, 10 February 2023, English translation included, hereinafter referred to as “Li”) in view of Stark et al. (US 2020/0306698, hereinafter referred to as “Stark”)
As to Claim 14: Li teaches the membrane of claim 1 (see above). Li further teaches that the composition can include a porous film [0041].
Li does not teach that the composition includes a zeolitic imidazolate framework.
However, Stark teaches that zeolitic imidazolate frameworks are well known for forming thin porous films for free standing membranes [0002]. Li and Stark are analogous art in that they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, membrane compositions. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the zeolitic imidazolate framework of Stark to form the porous film of Li because Stark teaches zeolitic imidazolate frameworks form free standing membranes [0002].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights