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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the polyether amine oligomer of claim one is different than the polyether amine of Li. This is not persuasive as Li explicitly teaches an amino containing polyether amine [0036]. The open-ended nature of comprising used in the instant claims along with the language of polyether amine oligomer allow for the compound of Li to read on the instant claim. Additionally, Li teaches that the average molecular weight of the polyether amine can be 400 Da which is within a preferred range of molecular weights for an oligomer. Accordingly, the arguments drawn to a different polyether amine in the instant claims compared to the prior art of Li is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Li is teaches the cross-linking reagent of Li is not utilized in combination in the examples and comparative examples of Li. However, Li explicitly teaches (and claims) combinations of epoxy group containing and double bond containing monomers. Additionally, Li teaches these with very few options for each monomer as disclosed in Claim 2 of Li and would not require any experimentation from a person having ordinary skill in the art to select these compounds from the short list provided.
Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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].
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 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].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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