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 Amendment
The amendment filed 05 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 24-25 are currently amended. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, claims, and specification have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01 October 2025, with the exception of the specification objection restated below.
Specification
The specification has not been entered as there needs to be a marked up version. The use of the terms Sartomer®, Millipore Sigma®, 3M®, and Red Dot®, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. In all instances of these terms, the specification should be amended to include the symbol ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 13-14, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta et al. (WO 2020/160510), hereinafter Bhakta, in view of Wang et al. (US PGPub No. 2024/0255362, effectively filed 27 May 2021), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Bhakta teaches an ion gel resin formulation comprising: a polymerizable ionic liquid, a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid, or a combination thereof (par. 0113: “A gel may comprise a polymeric ionic gel. In some cases, the polymeric ionic gel may be derived from a mixture comprising monomers and/or crosslinkers and/or initiators and/or ionic salts” and pars. 0099-101: “The ionic salt may include a cationic polymer, a conductive polymer, carbon black, carbon nanotube, carbon fiber, metal plated fibers, or ionic liquid or ionic polymer. […] Suitable ionic liquids or polymers may be 1 -butyl-3 -methylimidazolium (BMIM) based;” examiner notes that as this limitation is recited in the alternative, the limitation is regarded as being met when only one of the conditions is met, in this case, only a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid as included in the ionic salt), and a crosslinker (par. 0113: “the polymeric ionic gel may be derived from a mixture comprising […] crosslinkers”).
Bhakta does not explicitly teach wherein the nonpolymerizable ionic liquid is present in an amount of more than 55 wt. % based on the weight of the ion gel resin formulation. However, in an analogous art, Wang teaches an ion gel formulation comprising a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid (par. 0046: “the continuous film 110 may comprise an ionically conductive elastomer or ion gel. Such a continuous film 110 may be prepared from, in one example, an ionic liquid, an elastomer, and an optional crosslinker [..] The ionic liquid may comprise 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (EMIM:TFSI)”) that is present in an amount of more than 55 wt. % based on the weight of the ion gel formulation (par. 0059: “An elastomer/ionic gel is prepared to use as a precursor for forming the continuous film. An elastomer, such as PVDF-HFP, may be dissolved in acetone or another organic solvent. The elastomer to solvent weight ratio may be about 1:6, or more generally speaking in a range from about 1:5 to about 1:15. An ionic liquid, such as EMIM:TFSI, may be added into the mixture at a suitable weight percentage, such as from 15% to 60%”).
Wang further teaches that the weight percentage of a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid in an ion gel formulation is linked to the level of capacitance in the resulting ion gel and is thus a result effective variable (par. 0046: “it is found that a higher amount of the ionic liquid blended into the elastomer provides a higher capacitance, which is a favorable condition for achieving a higher sensitivity, as shown by the data in FIG. 11 for ionic liquid concentrations of 0 wt. %, 15 wt. %, 30 wt. % and 60 wt. %”). In light of Wang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhakta’s formulation by including the nonpolymerizable ionic liquid in an amount of more than 55 wt. %, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. The combination further teaches wherein the nonpolymerizable ionic liquid is present in an amount of from 55 wt. % to 95 wt. %, for the same reasons set forth previously in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. Bhakta further teaches wherein the nonpolymerizable ionic liquid comprises a bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI) anion (par. 0119: “an ionic salt comprising a 1-butyl-3-methyl imidazolium (BMIM) salt with presence of counter ion X (BMIM-X); where X may be [BF4], [Tf2N], [PFe], [TFSI], [OctSCE], or a combination thereof) and wherein the nonpolymerizable ionic liquid comprises a compound of the formula recited in claim 10 (1-butyl-3-methyl imidazolium salt corresponding to the left-hand structure and TFSI corresponding to the right-hand structure).
Regarding claims 13-14, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. Bhakta further teaches wherein the crosslinker is present in an amount of from 1 to 15 or 5 to 10 wt. % based on the weight of the ion gel resin formulation (par. 0118: “a gel may comprise a polymeric ionic gel derived from a mixture comprising by weight […] about 10% to about 90% a crosslinker”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of crosslinker from between 10 to 90 wt. % to between 1 to 15 or 5 to 10 wt. %, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 9, lines 14-15 indicating the crosslinker can “optionally” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. Bhakta further teaches further comprising a photoinitiator (par. 0095: “Suitable initiators may include chemical initiators, photochemical initiators, thermochemical initiators, or combinations thereof” and par. 0182: “Polyethyleneglycol diacrylate (PEGDA) and a photo-initiator were used as crosslinker and UV initiator”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 17 as described previously. Bhakta does not explicitly teach wherein the photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.05 wt. % to 0.15 wt. % based on the weight of the ion gel resin formulation, but teaches wherein the photoinitiator is present in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 20 wt. % (par. 0118: “a gel may comprise a polymeric ionic gel derived from a mixture comprising by weight about 10% to about 90% monomers, about 10% to about 90% a crosslinker, about 0.01% to about 20% an initiator, and about 1% to about 50% an ionic salt”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a weight percentage of 0.05% to 0.15% for the photoinitiator of Bhakta’s ion gel resin formulation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. Bhakta further teaches wherein the ion gel resin formulation is free from water or aqueous solvents (see contrast between polymeric ionic gels and hydrogels in par. 0182: “Polymeric ionic gels were produced to demonstrate reduced dehydration and increased durability for gels […] Hydrogels (bottom line) were found to lose ~ 45-50% mass over the 14 days, whereas the polymeric ionic gels only lost 10-15% mass”).
Regarding claims 22-24, the combination teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously. Bhakta further teaches a molded product comprising the ion gel resin formulation, wherein the molded product is an electrode, and a wearable device comprising the molded product integrated into the wearable device (par. 0006: “gels that can include electrodes. The gels are capable of withstanding numerous washing or drying cycles without substantial degradation of their chemical, mechanical, electrical or adhesion properties. The gels may be integrated into sensors that contain ideal electrical properties for sensing electrical signals from a subject. The sensors can be integrated into smart wearable products such as smart textiles”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the molded product of claim 22. Bhakta further teaches preparing the molded product of claim 22, comprising:
mixing a polymerizable ionic liquid, a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid, or a combination thereof; and a crosslinker to form an ion gel resin formulation (par. 0093: “a mixture comprising gel precursors such as ionic salts and/or monomers and/or initiators and/or crosslinkers and/or catalysts”);
and subjecting the ion gel resin formulation to an external stimulus (par. 0093: “A gel may be derived from a mixture comprising gel precursors be a curing process. Curing may utilize initiators and crosslinkers to solidify or form the gel structure. In addition to chemical initiators, curing processes may be induced by heat, radiation (e.g., light) or electron energization”).
Claims 2-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta in view of Wang and further in view of Chen et al. (“Cross-linked polymeric ionic liquids ion gel electrolytes by in situ radical polymerization,” 15 July 2019), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6, Bhakta in view of Wang teaches the ion gel formulation of claim 1, and Bhakta further teaches wherein a polymerizable component is present in an amount of from 20 wt % to 95 wt. % based on the weight of the ion gel resin formulation (par. 0118: “a polymeric ionic gel derived from a mixture comprising by weight about 10% to about 90% monomers”), but does not explicitly teach wherein both a polymerizable ionic liquid and a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid are present in the formulation. However, in an analogous art, Chen teaches that polymeric ionic liquids can be used as an alternative polymer matrix in an ion gel electrolyte, which provides better chemical affinity and conductivity and helps prevent phase separation (Introduction, page 2, lines 9-16: “To improve these drawbacks, polymeric ionic liquids (PILs) can be used as an alternative polymer matrix. PILs are prepared by the direct polymerization of polymerizable ILs monomers or copolymerization of polymerizable ILs monomers and polymer monomers. A stable ionogel polymer electrolyte can be obtained due to the chemical affinity between PILs and ILs affording a completely compatible combination without phase separation and leakage”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polymerizable ionic liquid monomers in the ion gel resin formulation of the combined reference, as taught by Chen, in order to achieve better chemical affinity and conductivity in the final electrolyte without phase separation, as taught by Chen.
Regarding claims 7-8, Bhakta in view of Wang teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously, and the combination in view of Chen teaches the use of a polymerizable ionic liquid as described in the rejection of claims 2-3 and 6. Chen further teaches wherein the polymerizable ionic liquid comprises a bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI) anion (Introduction, page 2, lines 23-28: “a series of free-standing ionogel polymer electrolytes (IGPEs) membranes, in which networked polymers have polycation ionic liquid structures and rich EO chains, via in situ free radical polymerization of poly(ethylene glycol) methacrylate (PEGMA) and N-Vinyl-3-butyl imidazole bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (VBImTFSI)”) and comprises a compound of the formula recited in claim 8 (N-Vinyl-3-butyl imidazole corresponding to the left-hand structure and TFSI corresponding to the right-hand structure), which provides toughness, flexibility, and high ionic conductivity for the ion gel electrolyte (Conclusions, lines 8-12: “The as-prepared IGPEs membranes show great toughness and flexibility. The IGPEs of P(PEGMA-VBImTFSI2)/LiTFSI exhibits a high ionic conductivity of 2.11 × 10−4 S cm−1 at room temperature and wide electrochemical window up to 4.9 V and a superior tLi+ of 0.83”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the specific polymerizable ionic liquid taught by Chen in the ion gel resin formulation of the combined reference, namely, VBImTFSI, in order to achieve the toughness, flexibility, and high ionic conductivity taught by Chen.
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta in view of Wang and further in view of Lee et al. (“Poly(urethane acrylate)-based gel polymer films for mechanically stable, transparent, and highly conductive polymer electrolyte applications,” 07 March 2017), hereinafter Lee.
Bhakta in view of Wang teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 1 as described previously but does not explicitly teach wherein the crosslinker comprises a urethane polymer, namely, urethane acrylate, or a compound of the formulas recited in claims 15-16. However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches the use of an acrylate-terminated urethane prepolymer as a crosslinker in a polymer electrolyte (Fig. 1 and Conclusions, lines 1-6: “Gel polymer electrolytes based on crosslinked PUA containing various ratios of DMPA–PEG and LiClO4/PC were prepared by in situ polymerization: PC was incorporated in an acrylate-terminated urethane prepolymer, and then, the mixture of the prepolymer and PC was mixed with LiClO4 and followed by crosslinking (polymerization of terminal divinyl groups)”), which provides good flexibility and mechanical resilience (Results and Discussion, page 5, col 2, lines 29-31: “the crosslinking of the urethane acrylate in the polymer backbone was effective for achieving good flexibility and mechanical resilience”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an acrylate-terminated urethane prepolymer as the crosslinker in the ion gel resin formulation of the combined reference, as taught by Lee, in order to achieve good flexibility and mechanical resilience, as taught by Lee.
Claims 18-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta in view of Wang and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0307665), hereinafter Hatakeyama.
Regarding claims 18-19, Bhakta in view of Wang teaches the ion gel resin formulation of claim 17 as described previously but does not explicitly teach wherein the photoinitiator comprises a phosphine oxide photoinitiator, namely phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (BAPO). However, in an analogous art, Hatakeyama teaches BAPO as a known photoinitiator in the bioelectrode art (par. 0160: “Examples of the photoradical generator include […] diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (BAPO)”). In light of Hatakeyama’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select BAPO as the photoinitiator in the ion gel resin formulation of Bhakta, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 26, Bhakta in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 25 as described previously, and Bhakta further teaches wherein the external stimulus is a light source emitting light in the UV range of wavelengths (par. 0182: “Polyethyleneglycol diacrylate (PEGDA) and a photo-initiator were used as crosslinker and UV initiator”), and Hatakeyama teaches BAPO as a photoinitiator as described previously. The combination therefore teaches substantially all the limitations of the claim except for the specific wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm. However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is old and notoriously well known, and is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known, to select a wavelength range between 350 and 410 nm for UV curing when BAPO is used as a photoinitiator, because it is known that BAPO has high molar absorptivity in this range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claim, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Wang. As described previously, Wang teaches an ion gel formulation comprising a nonpolymerizable ionic liquid in an amount of more than 55 wt. %.
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 DAVINA E LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM (ET).
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, JOANNE M RODDEN can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/D.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights