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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10, 12-13, 20, 23, 28, 30, 34-35 and 38), as well as, Species 1-a (Claims 2-3) and Species 2-a (Claims 7-8), in the reply filed on April 3, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, “Claim 39 depends from claim 1, requires all of the elements of claim 1 and will be patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Accordingly, there will not be any additional burden in searching or examining the Group I and Group II claims in the same application.” This is not found persuasive because MPEP § 808.02 recites that for the purposes of the initial requirement of a restriction, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. Since the Examiner has shown a different classification for the two groups of claims, a burden for examining both groups has been shown.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 4-6, 9-10, 12-13 and 39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species 1-b, Species 1-c, Species 2-b and Species 2-c, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 3, 2026.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted May 11, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 23, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain et al. “Hypercrosslinked polyanilines with nanoporous structure and high surface area: potential adsorbents for hydrogen storage” in view of Sotomura (US 5,665,492).
With regard to Claim 1, Germain et al. disclose an electrochemical device comprising a film comprising a conducting polymer, for example polyaniline, crosslinked with a linker, for example diiodomethane or paraformaldehyde, wherein the conducting polymer film comprises an ion, and a branched network having pores (pages 4995-4996). Germain et al. do not specifically disclose a conductive substrate coated with the film.
Sotomura discloses a composite electrode comprising an organic disulfide compound and polyaniline supported by a substrate of metallic copper, metallic silver, or an alloy containing copper or silver as a main component (column 2, lines 20-35). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical device of Germain et al. to include a conductive substrate coated with the film of Germain et al., because Sotomura teaches that this configuration attains high charge/discharge efficiency and an excellent charge/discharge cycle characteristic without losing the characteristic of high energy density (column 2, lines 13-19).
With regard to Claims 2-3, Germain et al. disclose wherein the conducting polymer is derived from a monomer having a double bond and a heteroatom, wherein the heteroatom is oxygen, sulfur or nitrogen. Germain et al. disclose wherein the conducting polymer is polyaniline (pages 4995-4996).
With regard to Claims 7-8, Germain et al. disclose wherein the linker comprises a C2-C8 compound comprising single, double, or triple bond, or a combination thereof, and optionally a heteroatom, wherein the heteroatom is oxygen, sulfur, or nitrogen. Germain et al. disclose wherein the linker is diiodomethane or paraformaldehyde (pages 4995-4996).
With regard to Claim 20, Germain et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the film is from about 20 nm to about 80 nm thick. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the film to have a thickness from about 20 nm to about 80 nm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 23, Germain et al. disclose wherein the ion is a cation and the cation comprises potassium carbonate (page 4995).
With regard to Claim 28, Sotomura discloses wherein the conductive substrate comprises carbon, carbon black, titanium, stainless steel and/or aluminum (column 6, lines 11-17.
With regard to Claim 30, Germain et al. disclose wherein the electrochemical device is an electrode, sensor, and/or supercapacitor (page 4989, column 2).
10. Claims 34, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain et al. “Hypercrosslinked polyanilines with nanoporous structure and high surface area: potential adsorbents for hydrogen storage” and Sotomura (US 5,665,492), as applied to Claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 23, 28 and 30 above, and in further view of Ichikawa et al. (JPWO2019/221267 A1).
With regard to Claims 34 and 38, Germain et al. and Sotomura disclose the electrochemical device in paragraph 9 above, including Germain et al. referencing the porous polyaniline film being used sensors and electrodes (page 4989, column 2), but do not specifically disclose an ion sensor comprising the electrochemical device and wherein the electrochemical device is a comb-chip electrode.
Ichikawa et al. disclose a cell (100) having two opposing glass substrates (40) and a comb-shaped gold electrode (50) formed on one of the glass substrates (paragraph 0069). Ichikawa et al. disclose a comb-shaped measuring section (51a) provided on part of the electrode (51) (paragraph 0072), the comb-shaped measuring section being considered an ion sensor. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical device of Germain et al. and Sotomura to include an ion sensor comprising the electrochemical device and wherein the electrochemical device is a comb-chip electrode, because Ichikawa et al. teach that this configuration is useful in evaluating the ionic conductivity of a cell (paragraph 0071).
With regard to Claim 35, Germain et al. disclose wherein the ion is a cation and the cation comprises potassium carbonate (page 4995).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights