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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Taiwanese Office Action cited in the information disclosure statement of 11 July 2023 has only been considered with respect to the search report, which is the last page of the office action, therein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in figures 12-19, the meanings of the lines in the graphs of these figures are not defined. None of the lines in the graphs for figures 12-14 and 17-19 have the same shade as the lines for DLC301, DLC306, and DLC3702. Thus it is unclear what line in figures 12-14 and 17-19 correspond with DLC301, DLC306, or DLC3702.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the actual formulas (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (B-1), (B-2), (B-3), (B-4) and (B-5) are not found in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 4 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.
This claim teaches the capacitor, in which the bimolecular block polymer is present as an electrolyte, comprises an electrical double layer capacitor. Thus the claim teaches a capacitor comprising an electrical double layer capacitor. There is no teaching or suggestion in the specification of a capacitor comprising an electrical double layer capacitor. The specification teaches, in paragraphs [0014] and [0041] that the capacitor, in which the bimolecular block polymer is present as an electrolyte, is an electrical double layer capacitor. This teaching defines the type of capacitor in which the claimed polymer can be present. This is different from what is claimed. The claim teaches the electrical double layer capacitor, which is a specific type of capacitor, is part of a capacitor. It is noted that capacitors are not composed of or made up of capacitors. The claimed subject matter is 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
This claim teaches the capacitor, in which the bimolecular block polymer is present as an electrolyte, comprises an electrical double layer capacitor. Thus the claim teaches a capacitor comprising an electrical double layer capacitor. It is unclear how an electrical double layer capacitor, which is a specific type of capacitor, is part of a capacitor. Capacitors are not composed of or made up of capacitors. Thus, this claim is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
This claim teaches the capacitor in which the bimolecular block polymer is present as an electrolyte comprises an electrical double layer capacitor. The type of capacitor in which the claimed polymer is suitable for use in does not further limit or define the block polymer of claim 1. This is because type of capacitor in which the polymer is intended to be used in does not impart any structural or compositional limitations onto the polymer of claim 1. Thus claim 4 is improperly dependent from claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2012/0172593.
This reference teaches a bimolecular block polymer formed by polymerizing compound A and compound B wherein the molar ratio of A:B is 10:1 to 1:10, preferably 1:1 to 5:1 (para 24). The broad taught molar ratio range overlaps the molar ratio ranges of claims 1 and 2. The preferred molar ratio range fall within that of claim 1 and overlaps that of claim 2. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Compound B is a heterocyclic amino aromatic derivative represented by one of Formula (1) to Formula (9) and are exemplified in Table 1. The exemplified compound B include imidazole, which is the claimed compound having formula B-4, and 2,4-dimethyl-2-imidazole, which is claimed compound B-5. Compound A can be a maleimide compound having formula 13 which consists of 10 maleimide based compounds. The taught maleimide compounds include maleimide when R8 is H and N-methyl maleimide when R8 is methyl. These two compounds are the claimed compounds A-2 and A-3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce a bimolecular block polymer formed by polymerizing compound A selected from one of the maleimide compounds having formula 13 and compound B selected from those in Table 1. This combination suggests a bimolecular block polymer formed by polymerizing one of maleimide or N-methyl maleimide as compound A and one of imidazole or 2,4-dimethyl-2-imidazole as compound B in either the molar ratio of 10:1 to 1:10 or 1:1 to 5:1 and thus makes obvious polymers of claims 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a bimolecular block copolymer from by polymerizing a first compound and a second compound in a molar ratio between 5:1 and 1:5, wherein the copolymer has a molecular weight between 10,000-200,000, the first compound is represented by one of formula (A-1) to formula (A-4) and the second compound is represented by one of formula (B-1) to formula (B-5).
The molecular weight of the polymers taught in U.S. patent application publication 2012/0172593 are not disclosed and there is no suggestion in the reference that the suggested polymers discussed in the rejection have or could have a molecular weight that at least overlaps the claimed range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
2/4/26