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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Status of the claims
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/24/2026 is acknowledged and claims 1-9 are examined on merits in this office action.
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 of this title, 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. 2016) in view of Truong et al (Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2017).
In regards to claim 1, Wang discloses a self-healable hydrogel comprising a polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and Borax (PAA-PVA-Borax) (Abstract and Scheme 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the PVA and Borax are covalently bonded. Wang teaches PVA and Acrylic acid are crosslinked by heating (i.e. thermally) to obtain PVA-g-PAA copolymer (page 17733, 1st col. “grafting of PVA with PAA).
Wang does not teach the hydrogel with a transition metal ions.
Truong teaches co-electrospun Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyacrylic acid (PAA) and thermally crosslinked hydrogel useful for metal uptake and for ammonia adsorption after decorating with a metal organic framework (Abstract and Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image2.png
184
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Truong teaches treating the hydrogel with transition metals (Zn or Cu) to uptake metal (page 7, Table 2; page 5, section 3.2 and conclusion of page 9) and providing metal decorated organic framework (Fig. 10) useful for ammonia adsorption (page 7 and Fig.2). Truong teaches that the hydrogel exhibits color binding of ligand with a change in color (page 3, section 2.2.5; and page 8, lines 10-13 of 1st col.).
Therefore, given the fact that PVA-PAA based polymer hydrogen is useful for transition metal uptake for utilizing detection with a change in color (Truong) and since the hydrogel of Wang comprises PVA-PAA, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to easily envisage considering the polymeric hydrogel of Wang for uptake of transition metal and providing metal organic framework with the expectation of adsorption/detection of ammonia with a change in color with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skilled in the art can easily envisage that the hydrogel of Wang with uptake of transition metals (Cu or Zn) would provide the hydrogel dispersed with the transition metal ions and detection of binding of ligand with a change in color.
In regards to claim 2, as described above, Truong teaches Cu and Zn, which are transition metals and which reads on claim 2.
In regards to claims 3-4, Truong teaches the PVA-PAA with having good solubility and Wang discloses various tensile strength of the hydrogel (page 17735), but however, the references do not mention regarding moisture percentage and hydrogel tensile modulus. However, since the self-healable hydrogel has not the same composition comprising PAA, PVA and Borax as described above by Wang, the moisture content and the tensile modulus would be expected to be the same or very similar. The Patent and Trademark Office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that there is a difference, in the first place, between the self-healable hydrogel composition of prior art (Wang) and those instantly disclosed and, that if there is such a difference, that such a difference would have been considered unexpected, i.e. unobvious, by one of ordinary skill in the art. The burden is upon applicant to present such factual evidence. See e.g. In re Best (195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977)) or Ex parte Phillips (28 USPQ2d 1302 (BPAI 1993)).
Moreover, 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)
In regards to claims 5, Wang teaches that the hydrogel has high conductivity and excellent healing efficiency/cyclability (page 17732) and teaches recovery of 95.7% (page 17735, last line of 1st col.).
In regards to claim 6, Truong teaches crosslinking of 20% (section 3.2 of page 5 and “conclusion” of page 9).
In regards to claims 7-9, Truong discloses chemical sensor for detection of ammonia utilizing the hydrogel. The chemical sensor is a product comprising comprises the self-healable hydrogen as claimed in claim 7 and the chemical is considered not a part of the claimed chemical sensor. Thus, the self-healable hydrogel of Wang in view of Truong on a surface would be considered a chemical detection sensor of claims 7-9.
Response to argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
However, some arguments are addressed below.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise suggest the specific chemical detection mechanism of the hydrogel of the present claims requiring visual color changes in the hydrogel itself prompted by direct ligand-binding between the transition metal ions dispersed therein and chemical substances in liquid and gaseous phases. Applicants argued that Wang, which is exclusively directed to the self-healing capability of ECs, specifically flexible, wearable smart energy-storage devices, is completely silent as to any chemical detecting mechanism of the hydrogel containing PVA and PAA, much less a color- changing detection media triggered by ligand-binding interactions between transition metal ions and ligands. Applicant further argued that even if, arguendo, a motivation exists to combine the teachings of Wang and Truong, the Wang-Truong combination would not teach or suggest all of the claimed elements, namely the chemical detection mechanism arising from color changes in the hydrogel itself caused by transition metal ions directly ligand-binding with chemicals in liquid and gaseous phases.
The above arguments have fully been considered but are not found persuasive. In regards to combination of the references, prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. The ‘‘mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.’’ The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be ‘‘so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.’’ In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. The teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. ‘‘[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. A person of ordinary skill in the art, using common knowledge and common sense, is capable of fitting the teachings of multiple references together like pieces of a puzzle, regardless of the specific problem being addressed by the individual references. Any need or problem known at the time of the invention can provide a reason for combining elements of the different references. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity. In this case, Truong teaches Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyacrylic acid (PAA) thermally crosslinked hydrogel after decorating with metal is useful for detection of ammonia ligand with a change in color. Since the hydrogel of Wang comprises PVA-PAA, one or ordinary skilled in the art would easily envisage considering the polymeric hydrogel of Wang decorated with transition metal with the expectation of expanding the arsenal of utilization of the hydrogel in detection of ligand e.g. ammonia) with a change in color with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 1 is directed to a hydrogel comprising a polyacrylic acid-polyvinyl alcohol-borax (PAA-PVA-Borax) with dispersed transition metal ion wherein the PAA and PVA are crosslinked and PVA and Borax are covalently bound. The recitation “the hydrogel exhibits a visual color change upon binding between the transition metal ions and a ligand” is an intended process utilizing the hydrogel. Attached ligand is not a part of the claimed hydrogel and the recitation does not change of differentiate the structure of the hydrogel. The combination of the references provides very similar structure having thermally crosslinked PAA and PVA wherein PVA are covalently linked to Borax and with dispersed metal ion. Thus, the hydrogen provided by the combination having very similar structure would be highly expected to display similar property of exhibiting color change upon binding with ligand (e.g. ammonia). Moreover, as described in the rejection above, Truong teaches that the hydrogel exhibits color binding of ligand with a change in color (page 3, section 2.2.5; and page 8, lines 10-13 of 1st col.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAFIQUL HAQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6103. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8-4:30.
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, Gregory S. Emch can be reached on 571-272-8149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAFIQUL HAQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Prosecution Insights