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/Restriction and Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1–3 in the reply filed on 6 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Liu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, Z.-Y.; Wu, J.-H.; Li, J.-T.; Huang, L.; Sun, S.-G. A high-performance alginate hydrogel binder for the Si/C anode of a Li-ion battery, Chem. Commun. 50, p. 6386–6389, published 2014) in view of Kong et al. (Kong, H.J.; Mooney, D.J. The Effects of Poly(Ethyleneimine) (PEI) Molecular Weight on Reinforcement of Alginate Hydrogels, Cell Transplantation 12, p. 779–785, published 2003) and as evidenced by Siwick et al. (Siwick, B.J.; Cox, M.J.; Bakker, H.J. Long-Range Proton Transfer in Aqueous Acid–Base Reactions, J. Phys. Chem. B 112, p. 378–389, published 2008).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Liu discloses a hydrogel binder comprising an anionic polyacid (see alginate hydrogel binder, p. 6386 ¶ “Fig. 1a presents…” and Scheme 1) and a solvent (see deionized water, p. 6386 ¶ “Alginic acid, a…”).
Liu does not disclose wherein the hydrogel binder further comprises a cationic polyamine. However, Liu does disclose (p. 6388 ¶ “These improved…”) the importance of strong mechanical properties for binders used in Si/C-based electrodes.
Kong teaches a hydrogel (see alginate hydrogels reinforced with PEI, p. 780 ¶ “To prepare alginate…”) comprising an anionic polyacid (see alginate, p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich in…”), a cationic polyamine (see PEIs, p. 780 ¶ “To prepare alginate…”), and a solvent (see deionized water, p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich in…”). Kong teaches that the addition of cationic polyamine to the hydrogel comprising the anionic polyacid can reinforce and stabilize the hydrogel (p. 779 ¶ “We propose that…”), and enhance and maintain its elastic modulus (p. 781 ¶ “In contrast to…”, p. 783 ¶ “The deterioration in…”, Table 1, and Fig. 6).
Liu and Kong are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of alginate-based hydrogels. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogel binder of Liu such that it further comprises a cationic polyamine, for the purpose of reinforcing and stabilizing the hydrogel, and enhancing and maintaining its elastic modulus.
Regarding the limitation wherein the anionic polyacid and the cationic polyamine are derived from an acid-base reaction between a polyacid and a polyamine, it is first noted this is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, as also set forth above, modified Liu discloses an anionic polyacid (see alginate, Kong p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich in…”; see also Na alginate (SA), Liu p. 6386 ¶ “To mitigate the…” and “Alginic acid, a…”, and Scheme 1) and a cationic polyamine (see PEIs, Kong p. 780 ¶ “To prepare alginate…”; note that Kong p. 783 ¶ “The minor changes…” discloses that the amines are protonated) which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand are necessarily formed by acid-base reaction(s) wherein the polyacid becomes deprotonated and the polyamine becomes protonated. However, modified Liu does not explicitly disclose that the anionic polyacid and the cationic polyamine are derived specifically from an acid-base reaction between the corresponding polyacid and polyamine, i.e. proton transfer from the polyacid directly to the polyamine. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that regardless of whether the anionic polyacid and cationic polyamine of modified Liu is derived from direct proton transfer from one species to another or e.g. solvent-facilitated proton transfer (as is common for solutions formed in protic solvents such as water, as evidenced by Siwick (p. 378 ¶ “Proton-transfer (PT)…”)), the overall products, i.e. the anionic polyacid and cationic polyamine, of the acid-base reaction(s) will be the same.
Liu does not disclose wherein the anionic polyacid and the cationic polyamine are derived from an acid-base reaction between a polyacid and a polyamine at a weight ratio in the range of 10:100 to 40:100 (Claim 1), or more specifically at a weight ratio of 24:100 (Claim 2).
Kong teaches that the ratio of polyacid to polyamine (expressed by Kong as a concentration ratio) affects the elastic moduli of the formed hydrogels (p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich…” and “To prepare alginate…”, p. 783 ¶ “The minor changes…”, and Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the concentration ratio of Kong could be equivalently expressed as a weight ratio, with the same trends observed.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the weight ratio of polyacid and polyamine is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the elastic moduli of the formed hydrogels, as taught by Kong, thus making the weight ratio of polyacid and polyamine a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogel binder of modified Liu such that the weight ratio of polyacid and polyamine is in the range of 10:100 to 40:100, or more narrowly is 24:100, via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable elastic modulus of the hydrogel.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Liu discloses the hydrogel binder of Claim 1. Modified Liu further discloses wherein the polyacid is a salt of alginic acid (see Na alginate (SA), Liu p. 6386 ¶ “To mitigate the…” and “Alginic acid, a…”; see also alginate, Kong p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich in…”) the polyamine is polyethyleneimine (see PEIs, Kong p. 780 ¶ “To prepare alginate…”; note that Kong p. 779 ¶ “To improve the…” identifies the acronym PEI as poly(ethyleneimine)), and the solvent is an aqueous medium (see deionized water, Liu p. 6386 ¶ “Alginic acid, a…”; see also deionized water, Kong p. 780 ¶ “Alginate rich in…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725