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 .
2. The Applicant's arguments filed on February 23, 2026, were received. None of the Claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-22 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on December 1, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted November 26, 2025, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mottet et al. (US 2018/0353906 A1) in view of Takamoto (JP2016137455A), has been overcome based on the arguments presented on pages 6-8 of the Remarks dated February 23, 2026.
6. Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mottet et al. (US 2018/0353906 A1) in view of DeFrance et al. “Review of Hydrogels and Aerogels Containing Nanocellulose”.
With regard to Claim 1, Mottet et al. disclose on Figure 1, a device for producing electrical energy comprising: a) a first reservoir A (20A) intended to receive an electrolytic solution (22A) having a concentration CA of a solute and comprising an electrode (30A) in contact with the electrolytic solution having a concentration CA (paragraphs 0032-0033); b) a second reservoir B (20B) intended to receive an electrolytic solution (22B) having a concentration CB of the same solute, CB being lower than CA, and comprising an electrode (30B) in contact with the electrolytic solution having a concentration CB (paragraph 0034); c) a membrane (10) separating the two reservoirs, said membrane (10) comprising pores, or microchannels (11), allowing the electrolytes to diffuse from reservoir A to reservoir B through said pore or pores (11) (paragraph 0035); and d) a device (32) allowing to supply the electrical energy generated by the potential differential existing between the two electrodes (paragraph 0036). Mottet et al. do not specifically disclose the membrane comprises at least one layer formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers.
DeFrance et al. disclose the use of nanocelluloses as a functional and renewable reinforcing agent for polymer composites (page 4611, column 1, paragraph 1), wherein the nanocelluloses are formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers (pages 4615-4616, Section 2.3; See Table 3). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane in the device of Mottet et al. to include at least one layer formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers, because DeFrance et al. teach that these materials are normally stronger and swell less, highly versatile and mechanically stable, and broaden the potential applications of CNC nanocomposites (page 4615, columns 1-2).
With regard to Claim 2, DeFrance et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the membrane is between 2 µm and 100 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the thickness of the membrane to be between 2 µm and 100 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 3, DeFrance et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the membrane comprises from 10 to 20 g of cellulosic material per m² of membrane. The specific amount of cellulosic material in the membrane is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the membrane, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of cellulosic material in the membrane, with the membrane stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of cellulosic material is increased, the precise amount of cellulosic material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of cellulosic material in the membrane of the device of Mottet et al. and DeFrance et al. to obtain the desired balance between the membrane stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 4, DeFrance et al. discloses wherein the nanofibers and/or the crosslinked cellulose microfibers are functionalized by negatively charged groups (pages 4615-4616, Section 2.3; See Table 3).
With regard to Claim 5, Mottet et al. disclose wherein the nanofibers and/or the crosslinked cellulose microfibers are functionalized by positively charged groups, including (meth)acrylamide (paragraph 0006).
With regard to Claim 6, DeFrance et al. disclose wherein the membrane comprises a single layer formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers (pages 4611, 4615-4616, Section 2.3; See Table 3). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane in the device of Mottet et al. to include a single layer formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers, because DeFrance et al. teach that these materials are normally stronger and swell less, highly versatile and mechanically stable, and broaden the potential applications of CNC nanocomposites (page 4615, columns 1-2).
With regard to Claim 7, DeFrance et al. disclose wherein the membrane is a composite membrane comprising two outer layers each formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers, between which is disposed an inner layer formed of a second material comprising nanoparticles functionalized by charged groups and/or groups which become charged in the presence of water (pages 4611, 4615-4616, Section 2.3; See Table 3). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane in the device of Mottet et al. to include a composite membrane comprising two outer layers each formed of a cellulosic material comprising a network of crosslinked cellulose nanofibers and/or microfibers, between which is disposed an inner layer formed of a second material comprising nanoparticles functionalized by charged groups and/or groups which become charged in the presence of water, because DeFrance et al. teach that these materials are normally stronger and swell less, highly versatile and mechanically stable, and broaden the potential applications of CNC nanocomposites (page 4615, columns 1-2).
With regard to Claim 8, DeFrance et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the outer layers is between 2 µm and 25 µm, and the thickness of the inner layer is between 10 nm and 2 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the thickness of the outer layers to be between 2 µm and 25 µm, and the thickness of inner layer to be between 10 nm and 2 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)
With regard to Claim 10, Mottet et al. disclose a method for producing electrical energy using a device above, comprising the following steps: i) supplying an electrolytic solution (22A) having a solute concentration CA in reservoir A (20A), so that the electrode (30A) with which it is equipped is in contact with said solution (22A) (paragraphs 0071-0073), ii) supplying an electrolytic solution (22B) having a concentration CB of the same solute, CB being lower than CA, in the reservoir B (20B), so that the electrode (30B) with which it is equipped is in contact with said solution (22B) (paragraph 0074), iii) allowing the electrolytes to diffuse from reservoir A to reservoir B through the membrane (10) (paragraph 0075), iv) capturing the electrical energy generated by the potential differential existing between the two electrodes, using the device (paragraph 0076).
With regard to Claim 11, Mottet et al. disclose wherein said electrolytic solutions are aqueous solutions comprising a solute selected from the group consisting of alkali halides and alkaline earth halides (paragraphs 0062-0063).
With regard to Claim 12, Mottet et al. disclose wherein the concentration ratio CA/CB is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 10 (paragraph 0061).
With regard to Claim 13, DeFrance et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the membrane is between 2 µm and 75 µm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the thickness of the membrane to be between 2 µm and 75 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 14, DeFrance et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the membrane comprises from 15 to 20 g of cellulosic material per m² of membrane. The specific amount of cellulosic material in the membrane is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the membrane, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of cellulosic material in the membrane, with the membrane stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of cellulosic material is increased, the precise amount of cellulosic material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of cellulosic material in the membrane of the device of Mottet et al. and DeFrance et al. to obtain the desired balance between the membrane stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 21, Mottet et al. disclose wherein said electrolytic solutions are aqueous solutions comprising a solute selected from the group consisting of NaCI, KCI, CaCI, and MgCI (paragraphs 0062-0063).
With regard to Claim 22, Mottet et al. disclose wherein the concentration ratio CA/CB is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 10 (paragraph 0061).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 9 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art do not teach or fairly suggest the device wherein the nanoparticles are lamellar nanoparticles; wherein the nanofibers and/or the crosslinked cellulose microfibers are functionalized by groups selected from the group consisting of the sulfonate group -SO3-, the carboxylate group -CO2- , the aminodiacetate group -(CH2CO2-) , the phosphonate group PO2³-; the amidoxine group -C(=NH2)(NOH), the aminophosphonate group -CH2-NH-CH2-PO32-, thethiol group -SH, and mixtures thereof; wherein the nanofibers and/or the crosslinked cellulose microfibers are functionalized by groups selected from the group consisting of the quaternary ammonium group-N(R)3+ with R being a C1-C4 alkyl, the tertiary ammonium group -N(H)R)2+ with R being a C1-C4 alkyl, dimethylhydroxyethylammonium group -N(C2H4OH)CH3)2+, and mixtures thereof; wherein the tertiary ammonium group is -N(H)R) 2+, with R being a C1 alkyl; wherein the lamellar nanoparticles are lamellar nanoparticles of a metal oxide, of a dichalcogenide of a transition metal, carbon, or a mixture thereof; wherein the lamellar nanoparticles are lamellar nanoparticles of graphene oxide functionalized at the surface by negatively charged groups or groups which become negatively charged in the presence of water; and, wherein the lamellar nanoparticles of the dichalcogenide of a transition metal are lamellar nanoparticles of molybdenum disulfide.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mottet et al. (US 2018/0353906 A1) in view of Takamoto (JP2016137455A), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DeFrance et al. “Review of Hydrogels and Aerogels Containing Nanocellulose”.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights