DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 23 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0154288) in view of Hammond et al. (“Nanostructure of the deep eutectic solvent/platinum electrode interface as a function of potential and water content”, Nanoscale Horizons, 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a reversible electrochemical mirror (title) (= a reversible electrochemical mirror comprising an electrolytic solution), wherein the electrolytic solution comprises:
Tetra-n-butylammonium bromide [0031] (= deep eutectic solvent);
Water [0008] (= an aqueous solvent); and
Copper [0008] (= a metal salt).
Kim discloses water as the aqueous solvent, however, Kim is silent in regards to the weight precent present therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art to find a workable concentration and arrive at a reference such as Hammond.
Hammond discloses a deep eutectic solvent comprising a water content up to 40 wt% (abstract). Hammond discloses that interfacial arrangements of liquid components depend strongly upon water content and applied potential and when water is added to DES, interfacial nanostructure increases up to 40 wt%. Hammond discloses this as a startling result, as added water dilutes the ions, which was expected to decrease interfacial nanostructure, as foreseen previously in ionic liquids. Hammond discloses that increases in interfacial nanostructure with added water is attributed to water molecules solvating and swelling the native ratio liquid structure and participating in the hydrogen bond network of the mixture, combined with the smooth, solid surface inducing a layered morphology (Conclusion p. 166-167).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an electrolytic solution comprising at least about 20 wt% aqueous solvent based on total weight of deep eutectic solvent because Hammond discloses that a weight percent of water with deep eutectic solvent is present in the amount up to 40 wt% as workable concentration.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses water [0008].
Regarding claim 3, Hammond discloses the percentage of water above. Kim in view of Hammond does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio, however, selection of varying the concentration is an obvious engineering design choice. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-7, Hammond discloses the use of choline chloride:urea (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Hammond discloses a choline chloride in 1:2 with either ethylene glycol or urea (Experimental, p. 159).
Regarding claims 8-9, Kim discloses copper [0008] including CuCl2 [0031].
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not disclose the inclusion of lithium, sodium and potassium salts.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the gelling agent comprising poly vinyl butyral [0031].
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses water and copper as described above. Hammond discloses choline chloride and glycerol.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0154288), in view of Hammond et al. (“Nanostructure of the deep eutectic solvent/platinum electrode interface as a function of potential and water content”, Nanoscale Horizons, 2018) and in further view of Gu (CN 102031551).
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Hammond do not disclose the claimed metal salt concentration.
In the same or similar field of forming an environmentally friendly electrolytic liquid comprising a deep eutectic solvent, Gu discloses a workable copper concentration including 0.1 – 1 M copper [0009]-[0010]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a concentration of metal salt such as copper of about 20 mM to 2 M because in the same or similar field of endeavor, Gu discloses a workable copper concentration that overlaps the claimed range. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where 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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0154288), in view of Hammond et al. (“Nanostructure of the deep eutectic solvent/platinum electrode interface as a function of potential and water content”, Nanoscale Horizons, 2018) and in further view of Baclig et al. (US 2020/0243912).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kim and Hammond do not disclose an electrochemical mediator.
In the same or similar field of deep eutectic solvent based systems, Baclig discloses the addition of iron chloride in eutectic liquids for providing additional conductivity and redox capacity [0031]. Baclig discloses the additional of about 10 vol% (about 15wt%) of 1:1 mixture of iron chloride (FeCl3) and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride improves the conductivity [0032].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a mediator such as iron chloride because Baclig discloses the addition of iron chloride improves the conductivity and redox potential of the deep eutectic solvent.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0154288), in view of Hammond et al. (“Nanostructure of the deep eutectic solvent/platinum electrode interface as a function of potential and water content”, Nanoscale Horizons, 2018) and in further view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0258093).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kim and Hammond do not disclose the claimed polymer concentration therefore in order to produce the system of Kim in view of Hammond, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art for a workable concentration of polyvinyl butyral and arrive at a reference such as Hu. In the same or similar field of deep eutectic solvents, Hu discloses the additional of polyvinyl butyral in an amount of 6 wt% [0042]. The concentration of Hu falls within the claimed range. Moreover, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018/167315 – deep eutectic solvent
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights