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 without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3 & 7 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.
The term “a low-temperature operation property of the solid electrolyte is improved” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-temperature operation property” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which property of the electrolyte is being claimed, and this will be interpreted as any chemical or mechanical property of the electrolyte at low temperatures. It is also unclear how the “low-temperature operation property” is improved and to what magnitude the property is improved.
The term “a high of the solid electrolyte is improved” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which property of the electrolyte is being claimed, and this will be interpreted as any chemical or mechanical property of the electrolyte at high temperatures. It is also unclear how the “high-temperature operation property” is improved and to what magnitude the property is improved.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotatha et al. (“Preparation and characterization of gel electrolyte with bacterial cellulose coated with alternating layers of chitosan and alginate for electric double-layer capacitors”), in view of Pawlicka et al. (“Agar and DNA Bio-Membranes for Electrochromic Devices Applications”).
Regarding claim 1, Kotatha teaches a solid electrolyte (Abstract, “gel electrolyte;” “The gel electrolyte was optimized for use in solvent-free solid-stage electric double-layer capacitors”) comprising: a base composite fiber (Abstract; “BC fibers”) including bacterial cellulose (Abstract; “bacterial cellulose (BC)”) and chitosan (Abstract; “coated with chitosan (CTS)”). Kotatha fails to teach DNA bound to a surface of the base composite fiber.
However, Pawlicka teaches a solid electrolyte (Pg. 113; “solid electrolyte”) comprising a base composite fiber; and a membrane made of DNA (Pg. 116, Par. 3; “DNA-membranes”). Pawlicka additionally states that other ionic conducting materials may also be used for the electrolyte, such as cellulose derivatives and chitosan (Abstract), but teaches that DNA is advantageous, as it promotes ionic conduction in batteries (Pg. 115, Par. 3; Pg. 16, Par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte taught by Kotatha by incorporating DNA into the base composite fiber in the same manner as chitosan. This would be done in order to improve ionic conductivity with an increase in temperature, as stated by Pawlicka (Pg. 119, Par. 4; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kotatha teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, further comprising: a carboxyl group (Abstract, “alginate (Alg);” Fig. 2(b), alginate has a carboxyl group) which is bound to a surface of the base composite fiber (Abstract; alginate is coated on and bound to the BC fibers).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kotatha fails to teach a low-temperature operation property of the solid electrolyte being improved by the DNA.
However, modified Kotatha teaches all of the positively recited elements of the claim. Because the low temperature operation property and its improvement are indefinite as set forth above, it is the examiner’s position that claim 3 is met.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kotatha teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, comprising: a first composite fiber that is formed as a surface of the base composite fiber is oxidized (Abstract, the base fiber of bacterial cellulose coated with chitosan is oxidized, forming a first composite fiber, as shown in Fig. 2(c-d)); and a second composite fiber that is formed as a first functional group having nitrogen is bound to a surface of the base composite fiber (Abstract, Fig. 2(d); the base fiber of BC and CTS is further coated with alginate, which is bound to the surface; alginate contains EMImBF4, which has a nitrogen-containing imidazolium functional group).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotatha, in view of Wang et al. ("Poly(aryl piperidinium) membranes and ionomers for hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells").
Regarding claim 5, Kotatha teaches a solid electrolyte (Abstract, “gel electrolyte;” “The gel electrolyte was optimized for use in solvent-free solid-stage electric double-layer capacitors”) comprising: a base composite fiber (Abstract; “BC fibers”) including bacterial cellulose (Abstract; “bacterial cellulose (BC)”) and chitosan (Abstract; “coated with chitosan (CTS)”). Kotatha fails to teach an additional functional fiber having piperidone as a backbone.
However, Wang teaches a polymer hydroxide exchange membrane (Pg. 393, Col. 1, “PEP Hems/HEIs”; the specification of the present application commonly refers to fibers as “composite fiber membranes”) with a piperidone backbone (Pg. 393, Col. 2; “polymers (PAP-N) with N-methyl-4-piperidone…PAP-N backbone”). A piperidone backbone is advantageous because they provide chemical stability while maintaining high ionic conductivity and flexibility, as stated by Wang (Pg. 393, Col. 2, Par. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte taught by Kotatha by incorporating a fiber with a piperidone backbone, as taught by Wang. This would be done in order to improve the electrolyte’s conductivity and stability, as stated in Wang (Pg. 395, “Conductivity and dimensional stability” section).
Regarding claim 6, Kotatha fails to teach a terphenyl group bound to a surface of a functional fiber.
However, Wang teaches a polymer hydroxide exchange membrane containing a terphenyl group (Pg. 393, Col. 2; “polymers (PAP-N) with … and biphenyl (or p-terphenyl)”; the specification of the present application commonly refers to fibers as “composite fiber membranes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte taught by Kotatha by incorporating a terphenyl group on the functional fiber, as taught by Wang. This would be done in order to improve the rigidity of the backbone, as stated in Wang (Pg. 395, “Conductivity and dimensional stability” section, Col. 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kotatha fails to teach a high-temperature operation property of the solid electrolyte being improved by the functional fiber.
However, modified Kotatha teaches all of the positively recited elements of the claim. Because the high temperature operation property and its improvement are indefinite as set forth above, it is the examiner’s position that claim 7 is met.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kotatha teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 5, comprising: a first composite fiber that is formed as a surface of the base composite fiber is oxidized (Abstract, the base fiber of bacterial cellulose coated with chitosan is oxidized, forming a first composite fiber, as shown in Fig. 2(c-d)); and a second composite fiber that is formed as a first functional group having nitrogen is bound to a surface of the base composite fiber (Abstract, Fig. 2(d); the base fiber of BC and CTS is further coated with alginate, which is bound to the surface; alginate contains EMImBF4, which has a nitrogen-containing imidazolium functional group).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights