ELECTRODE INCLUDING POLYMER FIBER AGGREGATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 1/15/2026:
Claims 3 and 12 have been amended; no claims have been entered.
Previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “In particular, the Office Action rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for allegedly lacking written description support for the term "moving substrate." Claim 12 has been amended to replace "moving substrate" with "transporting substrate," which aligns the claim language with the terminology used in the specification describing a substrate being transported (e.g., in a roll-to-roll process). This amendment merely clarifies the terminology and does not change the intended scope of protection. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the written description rejection of claim 12 is moot and should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. This is still not commensurate within the scope of the claim language. A “transporting substrate” does not translate to “roll-to-roll”. This needs to be conveyed in the claim language.
The Applicant discloses: “Although D1 generally relates to wet-spinning PEDOT:PSS in a sulfuric acid coagulation bath, the primary objective of D1 is the manufacturing of the fibers themselves-i.e., producing long, untangled fibers. D1 identifies irregular stacking of fibers which would form a network as an outcome to be avoided, and D1 adopts a bottom-up spinning configuration to prevent such issues. D1 further explains that injecting the spinning solution from the side or top of the coagulation bath causes fibers to float toward the surface, form kinks, and break. Accordingly, there is no technical basis or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 by changing the spinning direction to a side or top-down approach in order to intentionally form a polymer network, particularly where D1 teaches away from such an approach by identifying it as a source of technical defects (kinks and breakage).
[D1, p.4] Our initial attempts in using H2SO4 coagulation bath revealed that the conventional spinning set-up required some modifications since when PEDOT:PSS dispersion (also referred to as spinning dope) is injected from the top or the side of the coaqulation bath, the fiber immediately floated towards the surface causing it to form kinks and break easily (Fig. S1).
[D1, p.6] The fibers remained intact upon exposure in boiling water for 2 hours and after intentional mechanical mistreatment, tests that included vigorous shaking and sonication in a vial of water (Video Sif). In contrast, PEDOT:PSS fibers spun using the conventional coagulation bath (e.g. acetone or isopropanol) broke easily into small pieces even with gentle shaking (Video S2). The improved durability of the wet-state fibers may be attributed to the strong interconnection between PEDOT chains as a result of eliminating the excess PSS.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Zhang et al. never disclose the fibers are “untangled” being that they can form knots (See Fig. 1C). Further, spinning direction is not commensurate within the scope of the claim. The claim simply states “spinning”.
The Applicant discloses: “The Office Action maps D1's disclosure of using gauge needles of different diameters to manufacture fibers having different diameters to the claimed step of "preparing polymer fragments by pulverizing the polymer network." However, these teachings are fundamentally different. In the present invention, the polymer network is intentionally pulverized (e.g., ground) to cut the polymer fibers in the network into very short lengths so that they can be uniformly dispersed in a sulfuric acid solution.
In contrast, D1's use of different gauge needle diameters is for controlling fiber diameter during spinning and does not teach or suggest mechanically pulverizing a polymer network to produce polymer fragments. Thus, D1 fails to teach or suggest Element 3 of claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The Applicant discloses in their response that a “physical impact” may be implemented by any technique capable of cutting the polymer fibers (See page 6 of response). Further, this physical impact is understood to be done by a mechanical force and/or impact. The use of gauge needles is utilizing a mechanical force. Finally, the actual process of grinding is not disclosed in the specification but would provide a convincing argument.
The Applicant discloses: “The Office Action further maps D1's step of passing manufactured fibers through a washing bath to the claimed step of "producing an admixture comprising the polymer fragments." Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping is improper. The "admixture" of Element 4 comprises polymer fragments and serves as a precursor for subsequently aggregating those polymer fragments to form a polymer fiber aggregate.
By contrast, D1 passes PEDOT:PSS through a washing bath in fiber form but not as polymer fragments, and the purpose of D1's washing step is not to create an admixture of fragments for aggregation into a polymer fiber aggregate. Moreover, the present specification expressly contemplates that washing and/or drying may be performed after forming the polymer fiber aggregate (as reflected, for example, in claim 11). Accordingly, there is no technical basis for mapping D1's washing bath disclosure to Element 4 of claim 1. “
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Zhang discloses the production of multiple fibers which are subjected to a washing bath. The fibers can essentially be defined as fragments being that there are a plurality of them (See Fig. 1a and section 2.2).
The Applicant discloses: “D2 is structurally and technically incompatible with D1 and does not render obvious the claimed porous polymer fiber aggregate (Elements 5 and 6;"forming a polymer fiber aggregate by aggregating the polymer fragments" and "wherein the polymer fiber aggregate has pores therein.")
The Office Action acknowledges that D1 does not disclose forming a polymer fiber aggregate by aggregating polymer fragments, where the aggregate has pores therein, and relies on D2 for this teaching. However, D2 cannot be reasonably combined with D1 to reach the present invention. In the present invention, the polymer fragments are obtained by pulverizing fibers (i.e., the polymer fragments comprise cut polymer fibers).
In contrast, D2 manufactures spherical PEDOT:PSS particles by injecting an aqueous PEDOT:PSS dispersion into an organic solvent that is immiscible with water to form droplets via a water-in-oil emulsion method. This results in a fundamental structural mismatch, i.e., spherical particles versus cut fiber fragments. Further, there is a fundamental technical incompatibility: the sulfuric acid system used in the present invention and in D1 is water-miscible, making it technically impractical to form the water-in-oil droplets required by D2 within the chemical system of D1.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Rauer never specifies a “water-in-oil” emulsion and the Examiner is unclear as to where an oil is mentioned in the reference. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to highlight wherein Rauer a “water-in-oil” emulsion is disclosed. Further, Rauer also discloses a sulfuric acid bath in paragraph 0041. Finally, in regards to spherical particles versus cut fiber fragments, the reference of Rauer was not used to address the structural characteristics. Rauer is merely being used to address aggregating polymer fragments which contain pores.
The Applicant discloses: “With respect to claim 3, the Office Action states that the combination of D1 and D2 does not teach the recited PEDOT:PSS molar ratio range and cites MPEP 2144.05 regarding similar and overlapping ranges. Applicant respectfully submits that neither D1 nor D2 discloses a PEDOT:PSS molar ratio, much less a range that overlaps or renders obvious the claimed range. Absent evidence of a disclosed or suggested PEDOT:PSS molar ratio in the cited art, there is no factual basis to apply an "overlapping ranges" rationale to claim 3.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The purpose of MPEP 2144.05 IIA is routine optimization unless there is evidence indicating concentration or temperature is critical as indicated in previous Action. Such evidence has not been entered by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 discloses a transporting substrate. While the specification provides support for a substrate, it does not provide any disclosure for a transporting substrate.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 7, 6401, (2019)) and further in view of Rauer et al. (DE 10-2020-121036 using US 2023/0340187 A1 as an English language translation.).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Zhang et al. teach a method of manufacturing an electrode (Abstract discloses applying the method to making flexible electrodes.), comprising: producing a polymer network by spinning a spinning solution comprising a conductive polymer material into a sulfuric acid solution (Section 2.2 and Fig. 1a disclose wet-spinning polymer fibers in a sulfuric acid coagulation bath.); preparing polymer fragments by pulverizing the polymer network (Section 2.2 discloses using gauge needles of different diameters to produce fibers of different diameters.); producing an admixture comprising the polymer fragments (Section 2.2 discloses passing the fiber through a washing bath.). However, Zhang et al. do not disclose forming a polymer fiber aggregate by aggregating the polymer fragments, wherein the polymer fiber aggregate has pores therein.
Rauer et al. teach forming a polymer fiber aggregate by aggregating the polymer fragments (Paragraph 0041; Fig. 1). Further, the polymer fiber aggregate has pores therein (Paragraph 0042 discloses producing porous particles.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang with Rauer in order to provide continuous diffusion paths through individual particles.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Rauer et al. teach the method of claim 1. Further, Zhang et al. teach wherein the conductive polymer material comprises poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Rauer et al. teach the method of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the conductive polymer material comprises the poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene)(PEDOT) and the polystyrene sulfonate(PSS) in a molar ratio (PEDOT:PSS) of about 1:0.1 to 1:0.4.
MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combination of Zhang and Rauer et al. teach the method of claim 1. Further, Zhang et al. wherein the spinning solution is wet-spun in the form of fibers to a coagulation bath, and the fibers spun from the spinning solution are irregularly stacked in the coagulation bath to form the polymer network (Section 2.2 and Fig. 1a disclose wet-spinning polymer fibers in a sulfuric acid coagulation bath. Further, Section 3.3, page 6406, left column, first paragraph discloses π-π lamella stacking.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Rauer et al. teach the method of claim 1. Further, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the polymer fiber has a diameter in a range of about 1.0 to 100 µm (Section 3.2, page 6404, right column, first paragraph discloses 20 µm.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang and Rauer et al. teach the method of claim 1. Further, Rauer et al. teach wherein the method further comprises: washing the polymer fiber aggregate with a solvent component after the forming of the polymer fiber aggregate (Paragraph 0042 discloses emulsifying the polymer fiber in 1-octanol.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang with Rauer in order to provide continuous diffusion paths through individual particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter of claims 9 and 10 are steps not disclosed in the prior art of record or any subsequent searches.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 2nd, 2026