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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the term “paragraph” instead of “claim” in the first line of claims 2-5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4 are 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.
Claims 2-4, include the terminology of “may range from” which makes the claim indefinite as it does not necessary include the range stated.
Claims 2-4 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.
Claim 2-5 recites the limitation "the invention formula" in line 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wei et al. (CN 109810225A).
As to claim 1. Wei et al. discloses a cross-linked copolymer gel electrolyte (GPE) based on water and acrylamide (AA) for rechargeable aqueous batteries [0004],
characterized in that the copolymer also contains one of the following monomers:
[2-(methacryloyloxy) ethyl] dimethyl-(3-sulfopropyl) ammonium hydroxide (DMAPS) and their derivatives [0069],
as well as a crosslinking agent N, N'- methylenebisacrylamide (MBA) [0069].
As to claim 2. Wei et al. discloses the GPE (or copolymer) according to claim 1, characterized in that the water may be deionized and its mass content may range from 5% to 80%. The deionized water is approximately 42% by mass of the polymer of example 9 [0069].
0.075 g acrylamide (AAm)
+ 0.075 g 3-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl dimethylamino)propanesulfonate (DMAPS)
+ 0.00045 N,N'-methylenebisacrylamide (MBAA)
+ (0.00134 g) μL 2,2-diethoxyacetophenone (DEAP)
+1.02 g anhydrous sodium acetate (NaAc)
+ 0.85 g of distilled waterTotal 2.021484 grams
Water 0.85/2.02 is ~42 %
As to claim 3. Wei et al. discloses the GPE according to claim 1, characterized in that the mass percentage ratio of AA:DMAPS monomers may range from 95:5 to 5:95. From example 9 AA is 0.075 g and DMAPS is 0.075g thus equal parts 50:50
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 109810225A).
As to claim 4, Wei et al. discloses the GPE according to claim 1, characterized in that the mass percentage content of the crosslinking agent MBA relative to the total mass of AA and DMAPS monomers may range from 0.05% to 5%. Wei does not disclose the amount of 0.05-5% however Wei does discuss insufficient monomer or crosslinking agent content will reduce the mechanical strength of the composite gel electrolyte or even cause it to fail to gel [0025]. Therefore, Wei recognizes the amount of the crosslinking agent as a result effective variable as it effects the mechanical strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the amount of crosslinking agent to be 0.05-5% because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 109810225A) in view Whitacre (CN 103748726 A).
As to claim 5. Wei et al. discloses the GPE according to claim 1, characterized in that it contains an aqueous solution of one or a combination of electrolyte salts of sodium acetate (NaAc), anhydrous sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3), and anhydrous magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) but does not disclose the salts having the formula M+X-, where: M+ - Zn2+, Mn2+,Li+, Co2+X- - Cl-,S042-, N03, ClO4-, CF3SO3-,OH-.
Whitacre discloses a battery and teaches the electrolyte solution can include salts of MgSO4 or LiCL or LiOH or LiClO4 as alternative salts for a battery [0066].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to replace the salt of Wei with the salt Whitacre as they are known equivalents to be used in batteries. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights